On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:57:28 +0200
Kevin Kofler <[email protected]> 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 -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
