FS#47104 - [lapack] split packages

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Michel (xantares) - Wednesday, 18 November 2015, 08:27 GMT
Last edited by Antonio Rojas (arojas) - Sunday, 24 January 2016, 22:35 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Testing
Status Closed
Assigned To Ronald van Haren (pressh)
Antonio Rojas (arojas)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 1
Private No

Details

What's the rationale for splitting blas/cblas, and not lapacke ?
I package stuff in AUR too, I'd like to know if there's a rule or something, I imagine blas is split as it may be provided by other implementation, but cblas ?
So I just thought why not lapacke then ?

xan.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Antonio Rojas (arojas)
Sunday, 24 January 2016, 22:35 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Additional comments about closing:  lapack 3.6.0-3
Comment by Jan de Groot (JGC) - Wednesday, 18 November 2015, 09:30 GMT
I think the split should be removed completely. Only reason I see for a split is cblas not needing gcc-fortran where the other libraries do, but most software depending on cblas also depends on lapack, so it pulls in those dependencies anyways.

Reason for the split is because of history: cblas and blas used to be standalone packages which are now built from lapack sources.
Comment by Michel (xantares) - Wednesday, 18 November 2015, 09:35 GMT
I like that, it's simpler.
Comment by Antonio Rojas (arojas) - Tuesday, 08 December 2015, 15:22 GMT
See  FS#47290  for a possible reason for splitting lapacke
Comment by pavan yalamanchili (pavanky) - Tuesday, 08 December 2015, 16:17 GMT
FYI atlas implements a cblas API but not a lapacke API. While merging blas and cblas may be OK, I still suggest splitting up the lapack and lapacke packages for the reasons mentioned in  FS#47290 
Comment by pavan yalamanchili (pavanky) - Tuesday, 29 December 2015, 22:22 GMT
Guys, is there any decision being made about this issue ?

Loading...