Maurício CA
That's been said, it is still your package. And people can always change the build scripts for their own needs.
Not actually! I didn't work on bindings-levmar. I'm just the guy who started the idea of having low level bindings packages as basis for higher level bindings (so that this kind of problem can be solved at the same time for many, say, levmar high level bindings). That's why I would like to help acchieving good general guides for easy building. Wrapping of levmar is entirely van Dijk brothers' work.
Sorry, I didn't mean that. I was just trying to say that it might be wiser to put in a configure script like most of the open source software do. It does not need to be very complicated, because usually people know what they are doing when they want to link against different optimized libraries. The one[1] provided by hmatrix[2] is sufficient and easy to use for most of the purposes. [1] http://perception.inf.um.es/cgi-bin/darcsweb.cgi?r=hmatrix;a=headblob;f=/con... [2] http://www.hmatrix.googlepages.com/ In the case of hmatrix, it is good that you only need to run $ cabal install hmatrix -fmkl to build it against Intel mkl instead of the default BLAS/LAPACK. And you can also add other shared libraries to link against as a command line switch when you run `cabal install'. I just don't see the problem with bindings-levmar. Because compared with bindings-levmar, hmatrix actually needs GSL, BLAS and LAPACK, but it builds fine on hackage and the documents[3] are very well built. [3] http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/hmatrix Just my 2 cents. Xiao-Yong -- c/* __o/* <\ * (__ */\ <