On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 02:30:15AM -0700, Mo Zhou wrote: > problem is that the 64-bit indexing variant doesn't > have a standard SONAME. Without knowing anything more than what you've written here (which I didn't find too long), it sounds like maintenance burden is the concern. Am I right in thinking that there still exists non-Julia software for which your solution is cleaner than symbol mangling? Is that LAPACK? > long time ago, we (mainly BLAS/LAPACK maintainers) > decided to use the "SONAME=libXXX64.so" convention > without mangling symbol names. Mangling is not > considered because only openblas supports it. What you would do today if you were packaging it from scratch? If you would pick the Julia approach for ease of maintenance then a SONAME transition seems "simple" enough. If you would implement the cleaner no-mangling approach, then a libopenblas-julia compatibility dependency (option 2) would isolate the problem to the julia ecosystem. > their vendored OpenBLAS to "libopenblas64_.so.*", Ugh, vendoring "compiles for me, so it's your problem". > I have no confidence at all to convince > upstream to change their widely-spread practice. Even when that's the case, it's usually still worth reporting the issue upstream, so they know the pain they're introducing to potential users. All the best from an outsider, and thank you for tackling difficult interoperability decisions in Debian. -- Phil Morrell (emorrp1)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature