On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:57:28 +0200 Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dave Love wrote: > > > Kevin Kofler writes: > >> If you are talking about the missing RPM AutoProvides: > >> Provides: libblas.so.3()(64bit) > >> does wonders. > > > > I mean you need to get the soname right and ensure that you have > > everything implemented in the replacement library. > > Only the soname of the Provides matters. The actual library file can > be a symlink to the monolithic libopenblas.so.0, the dynamic linker > (ld.so) will load it just fine. The soname is only read at link time, > and there, it is fine (and in fact desired) that newly linked > applications get libopenblas.so.0 recorded as the soname, not > libblas.so.3. > > >>> Various things have been changed to use openblas on x86 after > >>> some of us agitated. > >> > >> The problem is, "various things" is not enough, we need a plan to > >> ensure ALL things use it. > > > > It's not available for them all as far as I know -- there's an rpm > > macro which says which ones. I'm happy if that's wrong now. > > "things" = "packages" here. Surely OpenBLAS should work for all the > BLAS- using packages on x86, especially if we symlink libblas.so to > it. If not, it is a bug either in OpenBLAS or in the package. > > OpenBLAS is not available for some exotic architectures, but the > solution there is to build ATLAS (or some other implementation) for > those architectures (and those architectures only) and set up the > symlinks there too. in F-27+ we should have OpenBLAS available for all active Fedora architectures Dan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
