Sun, 20 Jan 2013, 13:46 +01:00 from Vincent Danjean: > Le 19/01/2013 19:32, Bob Bib a écrit : > > Package: ocl-icd-opencl-dev > > Version: 1.3-3 > > Severity: normal > > > > Dear Maintainer, > > > > I'm not sure, but it seems to be reasonable to replace this: > > > > Depends: libopencl1 > > > > with following: > > > > Depends: ocl-icd-libopencl1 | libopencl1 > > > > because 'libopencl1' is just a virtual package (provided by > 'amd-libopencl1', > > 'nvidia-libopencl1' and 'ocl-icd-libopencl1'), > > while 'ocl-icd-libopencl1' is a binary package built from the same 'ocl-icd' > > source package. > > yes and ? > > The initial goal[1] of this package was so that someone can depends on > this package in order to be able to write an OpenCL program without > requiring a specific OpenCL environment (the ABI is normalized) > > So, can you elaborate on the problem you are trying to solve? >
The "problem" is the following: if a user has enabled "non-free" repository (which is quite usual nowadays), and then tries to install a single "ocl-icd-opencl-dev" package, (if no OpenCL implementation have been installed yet) it will pull NOT "ocl-icd-libopencl1", but "amd-libopencl1" (it is the first-by-alphabet candidate for "libopencl1"), which is a little contradictory to the current package goal (indepedence of any "specific OpenCL environment"). If a user has any OpenCL implementation installed -- let it be, else pull the generic "ocl-icd-libopencl1" native for "ocl-icd-opencl-dev". Hence "Depends: ocl-icd-libopencl1 | libopencl1" is a good idea, IMHO.
