Re: Updates about BLAS64
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:15:03AM +0100, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> > src:blis
> > bin:libblis1 (meta)
> > deps: libblis1-openmp | libblis1-pthread | libblis1-serial
> > provides: libblas.so.3
> > bin:libblis64-1 (meta)
> > deps: libblis64-1-openmp | ...
> > provides: libblas64.so.3
> > ...
> >
> > Note that BLIS doesn't provide LAPACK implementation.
> >
> > @Sebastian: Does this look good to OpenBLAS?
>
> I don't understand what your actual question is. Could you be more
> specific?
Sorry for the misspelling of name.
My question is, does it look good if we update OpenBLAS to provide
similar set of binary packages? i.e.
src: openblas
bin: libopenblas-base (meta)
deps: libopenblasX-openmp | libopenblasX-pthread,
bin: libopenblasX-openmp
conflict: libopenblasX-pthread
bin: libopenblasX-pthread
conflict: ...
bin: libopenblas-dev (meta)
deps: libopenblas-base
bin: libopenblas-openmp-dev
deps: libopenblasX-openmp
conflict: libopenblas-pthread-dev
bin: libopenblas-pthread-dev
deps: libopenblasX-pthread
conflict: libopenblas-openmp-dev
bin: libopenblas64-base (meta)
[...omitted...]
bin: libopenblas64-dev (meta)
[...omitted...]
As we know, NEW packages such as BLIS are good candidates experiments
without risking to break existing packages such as OpenBLAS. So if the
way we compile BLIS is proved working, we can also apply it to OpenBLAS.
BTW, what is the "-base" (in libopenblas-base) supposed to mean?
Reply to: