<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic A web search quickly verifies in Software Archive</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Python-and-lib32-not-found-by-installer/m-p/1020937#M38151</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;A web search quickly verifies you're not the first person to run up against the problems associated with Gentoo installing things in non-standard paths.&amp;nbsp; Intel software tools don't make any promise to deal with those situations where Gentoo differs from the supported distros.&amp;nbsp; If you were able to set up symlinks so that those packages appear in the same path as on one of the supported distros, that should help.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;There's a reason why major distros including red hat, centos, and suse, support linux standards base.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2014 23:21:15 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>TimP</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2014-05-22T23:21:15Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Python and lib32 not found by installer</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Python-and-lib32-not-found-by-installer/m-p/1020936#M38150</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I am trying to install Intel&amp;nbsp;Parallel Studio XE 2013 SP1 Update 2 in my Gentoo Linux machine using the internet installer, but it does not find Python 2.7 nor the 32-bits libraries. I could easily point out the path to these, but&amp;nbsp;l_psxe_online_p_2.1.2.017.sh -help is not all that helpful. Is there any trick to guide the installer script to find those libs?&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2014 20:30:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Python-and-lib32-not-found-by-installer/m-p/1020936#M38150</guid>
      <dc:creator>holysword</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-05-22T20:30:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A web search quickly verifies</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Python-and-lib32-not-found-by-installer/m-p/1020937#M38151</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;A web search quickly verifies you're not the first person to run up against the problems associated with Gentoo installing things in non-standard paths.&amp;nbsp; Intel software tools don't make any promise to deal with those situations where Gentoo differs from the supported distros.&amp;nbsp; If you were able to set up symlinks so that those packages appear in the same path as on one of the supported distros, that should help.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;There's a reason why major distros including red hat, centos, and suse, support linux standards base.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2014 23:21:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Python-and-lib32-not-found-by-installer/m-p/1020937#M38151</guid>
      <dc:creator>TimP</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-05-22T23:21:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Thank you for your response,</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Python-and-lib32-not-found-by-installer/m-p/1020938#M38152</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thank you for your response, Tim.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;It is a common practice in the Linux community (much more fundamental and well-regarded than establishing "standard paths" ) to specify paths via command line in the configuration script. For example,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;./configure --with-blas=/home/holysword/my_crazy_blas_thingy/&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;works flawlessly for "standard" Linux packages, but much more than that, it allows the user to use his own implementation of specific libraries or unstable/under development&amp;nbsp;(for testing purposes, if you want) while still keeping the official stable version somewhere else. If Intel is so interested in following "standards" and common practices of Linux community - which I definitely praise - I would dare to say that this is far more crucial than guessing ("standard" or not) paths or providing graphical interfaces.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Symlinks could be a workaround, but a nonoptimal one. Intel libraries will always look for the symlinks and never for the actual libraries, and whenever I update them I will have to manually update the symlinks. It could also confuse future package installs who would be mislead to use the symlink rather than the actual correct library.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2014 23:49:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Python-and-lib32-not-found-by-installer/m-p/1020938#M38152</guid>
      <dc:creator>holysword</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-05-22T23:49:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

