[opensuse-packaging] A better handling of several BLAS and LAPACK implementations
Hi, I just want to have your comments and feedback regarding the changes I made on the lapack, libatlas3 and openblas packages in order to provide the to the end users the ability to switch between the several BLAS implementations available on OBS. These changes have been inspired from debian (http://wiki.debian.org/DebianScience/LinearAlgebraLibraries) which uses update-alternatives. My work is available in https://build.opensuse.org/project/show?project=home%3Ascorot%3Abranches%3Ad... Sebastien -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 08:15:00PM +0100, Sebastien Corot wrote:
Hi,
I just want to have your comments and feedback regarding the changes I made on the lapack, libatlas3 and openblas packages in order to provide the to the end users the ability to switch between the several BLAS implementations available on OBS. These changes have been inspired from debian (http://wiki.debian.org/DebianScience/LinearAlgebraLibraries) which uses update-alternatives.
My work is available in https://build.opensuse.org/project/show?project=home%3Ascorot%3Abranches%3Ad...
Hallo Sebastien, wearing my maintainer's hats for devel:libraries:c_c++ and update-alternatives it seems good to me, so feel free to submit it back. Regards Michal Vyskocil
Sebastien -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Michal Vyskocil <mvyskocil@suse.cz> wrote:
My work is available in https://build.opensuse.org/project/show?project=home%3Ascorot%3Abranches%3Ad...
Hallo Sebastien,
wearing my maintainer's hats for devel:libraries:c_c++ and update-alternatives it seems good to me, so feel free to submit it back.
How does this affect packages depending on the library? Should they disable or override autoreqprov and specify a dependency on some particular provides? (I couldn't see anything like that mentioned on the links) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Le 18/01/2013 15:57, Claudio Freire a écrit :
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Michal Vyskocil <mvyskocil@suse.cz> wrote:
My work is available in https://build.opensuse.org/project/show?project=home%3Ascorot%3Abranches%3Ad...
Hallo Sebastien,
wearing my maintainer's hats for devel:libraries:c_c++ and update-alternatives it seems good to me, so feel free to submit it back.
How does this affect packages depending on the library?
Should they disable or override autoreqprov and specify a dependency on some particular provides? (I couldn't see anything like that mentioned on the links)
Currently it does not affect anything. The changes I made are done so that the packages that depend on liblapack.so.3 will still install liblapack3. But uou are right, we should propably work on the provides of ALTAS openblas, so that they will also provide liblapack.so.3 and libblas.so.3. But this can come later. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:57:58AM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Michal Vyskocil <mvyskocil@suse.cz> wrote:
My work is available in https://build.opensuse.org/project/show?project=home%3Ascorot%3Abranches%3Ad...
Hallo Sebastien,
wearing my maintainer's hats for devel:libraries:c_c++ and update-alternatives it seems good to me, so feel free to submit it back.
How does this affect packages depending on the library?
Should they disable or override autoreqprov and specify a dependency on some particular provides? (I couldn't see anything like that mentioned on the links)
Hi, in theory it should not, because if Debian wiki [1] is true, the BLAS and LAPACK implementations should have the same API, so depending package should require only symbols provided by any implementation. But as far I can see, in sebastien's branch, there is just lapack providing liblapack.so.3 alternative and openblas providing libblas.so.3 - @sebastien: do we have more alternatives to prove if we can live with automatic requires, or not? There are few things in a spec files I don't like: * PreReq -> Requires(pre) is preffered, but as update-alternatives is called from %post and %preun, the Requires(post), Requires(preun) will be the most correct one * is there any need for packaging of static libraries (lapack)? If so, then please move them to devel-static subpackage, like openblas http://wiki.debian.org/DebianScience/LinearAlgebraLibraries Regards Michal Vyskocil
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Le 21/01/2013 11:06, Michal Vyskocil a écrit :
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:57:58AM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Michal Vyskocil <mvyskocil@suse.cz> wrote:
My work is available in https://build.opensuse.org/project/show?project=home%3Ascorot%3Abranches%3Ad...
Hallo Sebastien,
wearing my maintainer's hats for devel:libraries:c_c++ and update-alternatives it seems good to me, so feel free to submit it back.
How does this affect packages depending on the library?
Should they disable or override autoreqprov and specify a dependency on some particular provides? (I couldn't see anything like that mentioned on the links)
Hi,
in theory it should not, because if Debian wiki [1] is true, the BLAS and LAPACK implementations should have the same API, so depending package should require only symbols provided by any implementation.
But as far I can see, in sebastien's branch, there is just lapack providing liblapack.so.3 alternative and openblas providing libblas.so.3 - @sebastien: do we have more alternatives to prove if we can live with automatic requires, or not?
In addition to openblas, there is also libatlas3 which is able to provide libblas.so.3 and liblapack.so.3. I have made some changes in libatlas3 regarding update-alternative and submit it to SR149140 which has already been accepted. See https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/149140
There are few things in a spec files I don't like:
* PreReq -> Requires(pre) is preffered, but as update-alternatives is called from %post and %preun, the Requires(post), Requires(preun) will be the most correct one * is there any need for packaging of static libraries (lapack)? If so, then please move them to devel-static subpackage, like openblas
Ok, I can make that changes and create a new SR.
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianScience/LinearAlgebraLibraries
Regards Michal Vyskocil
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlD9cWAACgkQ8AAoq14A30x9aQCfeemYEntmjJBrsGPvMTB8vB0e 6XsAoJ22goOrWHS/sAuPNfIR/ib0VLoX =3iZs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
participants (3)
-
Claudio Freire -
Michal Vyskocil -
Sebastien Corot