Hi Drew and Julien,
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 at 15:41, Drew Parsons <dparsons@debian.org
<mailto:dparsons@debian.org>> wrote:
On 2021-04-25 09:56, Julien Lamy wrote:
> Le 22/04/2021 à 19:30, Nilesh Patra a écrit :
...
>> I tried in a ppc64el porter box, and I get several of:
>>
>> /home/nilesh/xsimd/xsimd/test/test_batch_bool.cpp:315:1: error:
>> 'gtest_type_params_batch_bool_test_' was not declared in this
scope;
>> did you mean 'gtest_type_params_batch_bool_test_NameGenerator'?
>> 315 | TYPED_TEST(batch_bool_test, load_store)
...
>> And a failing build. Both for build time as well as autopkgtests.
>> Do you think we should for now limit arches to amd64 i386 and
arm64 in
>> d/control for now?
>
> Since upstream only supports x86 and ARM (v7 + v8) instruction sets
> and since I don't have access to either mips or ppc boxes, I think
> restricting to the corresponding arches makes sense. I've added armhf
> to the ones you mention, as it should be in the supported list (I'm
> not familiar with ARM, let me know if it was a mistake).
@Julien that does not work on armhf, I built on a porter box to check as
well
several of these:
/home/nilesh/xsimd/xsimd/test/test_api.cpp:222:1: error:
‘gtest_type_params_xsimd_api_test_’ was not declared in this scope; did
you mean ‘gtest_type_params_xsimd_api_test_NameGenerator’?
222 | TYPED_TEST(xsimd_api_test, store)
| ^~~~~~~~~~
...
>> * Why is the package named xsimd-dev instead of libxsimd-dev? It
might
>> match xtensor, but AFAICS that's
>> against the library style packaging. For ref:
>>
https://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html
<https://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html>
>
>>
<https://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html
<https://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html>>
>
> It was indeed chosen to match xtensor/xtl. I've reverted it to match
> the usual naming (libxsimd-dev / libxsimd-doc).
The difference is that xsimd is not a library, it's a header package.
There is no libxsimd.so.
Right.
So the naming rules are not so clear cut for header packages. But simde
does use libsimde-dev.
In the case of xsimd, it's part of the xtensor family, so for that
reason I would recommend following xtensor's convention. Perhaps
xtensor
should be changed to libxtensor-dev, but the reason (or history) for it
being different is that it's header-only.
It'd be nice if everything could be prefixed with a "lib". It creates
less confusion and gives a clear idea
that the package would indeed contain header files. There's also
"paryfor"[1] as another example than simde which is header-only package.