Re: plastimatch/1.6.5+dfsg1-1 prep
On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 14:38 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 11:05:02AM +0000, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > > Hmmm, this message droped in my inbox after uploading. I'm not sure how
> > > important this might be - in any case the package has built nicely.
> >
> > Both libblas-dev and libblas-dev | libblas.so would lead to successful
> > builds on autobuilders. The latter always pick libblas-dev in case an
> > alternative implementation is not already installed.
>
> OK, so there is no real point to change anything since I only use clean
> chroots for building (and expect others to do so as well at least before
> uploading, right?
I'd say this change is probably not a reason for releasing a new iteration of
the package. However, not all users build from chroots and those would enjoy
being able to use their preferred BLAS implementation.
> > It is only a big deal for local builds, where you might have a BLAS
> > compatible package already installed (which provides libblas.so).
For instance, there is a significant difference in build time for src:shark
whether you build it with libblas-dev or libopenblas-dev. The testsuite runs
much faster with the latter, but it is not available on all architectures.
libblas-dev | libblas.so ensures that I can use OpenBLAS in local builds and
NetLib's BLAS in chroots / autobuilders.
Ghis
Reply to: