Le dimanche 16 décembre 2018 à 09:34 +0000, Mo Zhou a écrit : > 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...] I am not entirely convinced that meta-packages are needed. Isn't the "Provides: libblas.so.3" not enough? The main OpenBLAS package could actually remain the pthread version, as it is now, and there would be two new packages, for the OpenMP and the single threaded ones. > 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. That is a good idea. As a matter of fact, I think we are now too close from the freeze to start modifying the layout for OpenBLAS; let's wait for the Bullseye cycle. > BTW, what is the "-base" (in libopenblas-base) supposed to mean? I don't even remember what it means, but it is clearly a legacy from the past. Ideally the package should be named "libopenblas0". But I did not bother with transitioning from one to the other, since it is rather tedious, with strictly zero benefit for users. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ http://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part