Le mardi 18 décembre 2018 à 15:12 +0000, Mo Zhou a écrit : > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:42:22PM +0100, Sébastien Villemot wrote: > > > 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. > > Then it's a good chance for us to get rid of it, when modifying the > package layout. We can avoid a transition if we turn the old pacakges > into meta packages. I still prefer my proposed package layout, i.e. > > libopenblas0 (meta): > deps: libopenblas0-openmp | libopenblas0-pthread | ... > libopenblas-base (meta, because it cannot be safely removed): > deps: libopenblas0 > libopenblas0-openmp: > conflicts: libopenblas0-pthread, ... > > libopenblas-dev (meta): > deps: libopenblas0, > libopenblas-openmp-dev | libopenblas-pthread-dev | ... > libopenblas-openmp-dev: > conflicts: libopenblas-pthread-dev, ... > > Such layout has several advantages: > > 1. compared to (libopenblas0 i.e. pthread version, libopenblas0-openmp), > the (libopenblas0-openmp, libopenblas0-pthread) layout is more > explicit and tidy. > > 2. we can control the default openblas implementation by adjusting > the dependency of libopenblas0 (meta) and libopenblas-dev (meta). > And maintainers of reverse dependencies won't have the headache to > choose one from (openmp, pthread, ...) > > 3. won't break packages that depend on libopenblas-base Ok, I think you convinced me. Note that we also want a libopenblas0-serial. (I'm CC'ing #878121 so that we don't forget this layout proposal for OpenBLAS). -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ http://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part