https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910 Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |orion@xxxxxxxx --- Comment #12 from Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxx> --- Creating the new libblas.so.3 libraries is a pretty clever trick, and I think solves one of the problems I was running into while working on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts:BLAS_LAPACK However, I think there are still issues that need to be fleshed out. The main issues with how this is packaged now are: - Installing packages may bring in (unexpectedly) blis instead of blas because blis provides libblas.so.3()(64bit) - There is no consistent/managed way to switch between implementations - How do you select between the serial and different parallel versions of the libblas libraries? They all appear to have the same soname so any could be selected which is almost certainly incorrect. - The 64-bit libblas soname is actually libblas64_.so.3()(64bit) For now I think it would be fine to package without the ld.so.conf.d files and filtering out the libblas* sonames. Users can create their own ld.so.conf.d file or set LD_LIBRARY_PATH however they choose (e.g. modules). But beyond that requires distro wide coordination. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
