Re: RFC: Changing the debian system default BLAS/LAPACK implementation
Hi Andreas,
Thanks for the feedback. It turns that at least two of us agree that an
overridable and sensible default is the preferred way.
In that case, we should keep the dependency template of src:lapack
intact. And I'll afterwards (1) write a lintian info notifying the
maintainer about performance; (2) update science team policy about this
recommendation.
BTW, it's relatively easy to provide a recommendedation on overriding
the default blas/lapack dependency:
Recommends: libopenblas0 | libblis3 | libatlas3-base | libblas3 | libmkl-rt | libblas.so.3
(maintainers can also move these packages to Depends: or Suggests: when appropriate)
The package order is the same as that in the update-alternative
mechanism.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:58:36AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 11:11:33AM +0000, Mo Zhou wrote:
> > https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/lapack/-/blob/master/debian/shlibs.local
> > Here is the dependency template used by dpkg-shlibdeps when generating the .deb files.
> > If we change the template, all the reverse dependency will have a
> > updated list of providers.
> >
> > Currently the template is:
> > "libblas3 | libblas.so.3"
> >
> > An updated template may looks like this:
> > "libopenblas0 | libblis3 | <...> | libblas3 | libblas.so.3"
>
> I'd think having a sensible default for everybody makes sense.
> I guess there is an option to override this default in case
> this might be really needed (I have not checked since I have
> never seen any need).
>
> > Which way do you prefer?
>
> Defaults, defaults, defaults + an option to override if someone
> really needs it.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Andreas.
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: