On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 10:34, Dave Love <loveshack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [I found I hadn't sent this earlier, as I should have.] > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FlexiBLAS_as_BLAS/LAPACK_manager > > > > == Summary == > > BLAS/LAPACK packages will be compiled against the FlexiBLAS wrapper > > library, which will set OpenBLAS as system-wide default backend, and > > at the same time will provide a proper switching mechanism that > > currently Fedora lacks. > > > I oppose this (in favour of a different approach) from experience in > research computing system management, general support, and > implementation. It doesn't solve any problem I (have) had, as far as I > can tell, and looks as if it produces more. The licence seems to me to > rule it out a priori. The authors are going to add an exception, so the license won't be a problem. What problems do you think it produces? > The proposal doesn't justify things, including its dismissal of the > simple, clean alternative in similar to Debian's, with which I have some I don't justify that because Debian's alternative has been repeatedly dismissed as an option for Fedora for a simple reason: one could end up with libblas pointing to one implementation and liblapack pointing to another. This problem, that Debian has, is solved with this library. > There will be hoops to jump through to get packages to configure when > they don't know about the library. I don't think so, but if there are serious issues, rolling back the change is pretty straightforward. > If I want to use a library that's > not included, I'm in the same position. No, you are not. You just need to point to that library using the FLEXIBLAS environment variable. > It's not clear to me a priori > what happens if you try to use just BLIS even, given that OpenBLAS' > LAPACK implementation isn't the vanilla one, and depends on OpenBLAS as > far as I know. I don't understand this. You can switch to BLIS easily. The default one doesn't matter. > The choice of OpenBLAS isn't justified. It's not even > obvious that you want the same implementation for serial and > multi-threaded as OpenBLAS seems to have had continual problems with > threading which BLIS hasn't as far as I know. I expect OpenBLAS is the > best serial option on average, at least, but that needs data for > different architectures. This is about having a sane default one. That's it. You can switch then to whatever implementation you want. > I realize no-one is going to be running Fedora on HPC systems, where > this really matters, but presumably it filters down to RHEL, which is > looking less and less like a good HPC platform to me. Actually, FlexiBLAS is developed by researchers in HPC. -- Iñaki Úcar _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
