Default BLAS/LAPACK implementation + runtime exchangeable backends
by Iñaki Ucar
Hi,
I didn't find this proposal in the archives, so let me add something
to this discussion. Does anyone know about FlexiBLAS [1]? It seems
like the perfect solution to this problem, and AFAIK, only Arch
packages it. Here's a presentation [2] about it (not up-to-date with
the current feature-set, but still interesting).
TL;DR, the general idea would be to build everything in Fedora against
the libblas.so, liblapack.so and libumfpack.so wrappers provided by
FlexiBLAS, and then it redirects the calls to the proper library (that
could be openblas-serial by default, of course). Then it provides the
user with a nice mechanism to select a backend (not based on
update-alternatives, no root privileges required). Additionally, it
embeds some profiling capabilities, which is really nice.
I think it's very much worth a try. Opinions?
[1] https://www.mpi-magdeburg.mpg.de/projects/flexiblas
[2] https://www2.mpi-magdeburg.mpg.de/mpcsc/software/flexiblas/2018_talk_fin_...
--
Iñaki Úcar
4 years
Location of executable code
by Steve Grubb
Hello,
I am working on our application whitelisting daemon. It uses the rpmdb to
derive trust in what's on disk. If we use the whole rpmdb, then the number of
files is large. So, to prune the amount of entries in the trust db down to a
reasonable number, I thought we could jettison anything in /usr/share.
According to the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard [1] it says this about /usr/
share:
The /usr/share hierarchy is for all read-only architecture independent data
files.
But what I'm finding in practice is that cinnamon places its javascript there,
there are libexec dirs that contain executable code, there are python and
byte compiled python over there. In short, the system doesn't work because
critical executables are in /usr/share.
The question is what should be done about this? Do we care that things are in
/usr/share that are not following the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard? If we
do, what is the proper fix this this? Should bz be opened against each
component?
Best Regards,
-Steve
1 - https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04s11.html
4 years
pam: removing libdb
by Iker Pedrosa
Hi,
I'm facing a bugzilla [1] that asks to remove libdb dependency from pam
package and to change it to NDBM. So, I'd like to hear feedback from the
community. Is anybody using pam_userdb module? From those who are using it,
which database are you using? Will you have to migrate from one database to
the other in case of dropping support for libdb? Any other comments?
Links:
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1788543
--
Iker Pedrosa
Software Engineer, Identity Management team
Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>
<https://www.redhat.com>
4 years
RFC: Update zola to 0.11 in F32
by Igor Raits
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Hello,
The zola¹ upstream has released new version 0.11² that contains some
breaking changes. Does it make sense pushing this update to F32 or
better avoid doing so?
¹https://www.getzola.org/
²
https://github.com/getzola/zola/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#0110-2020-05-25
- --
Igor Raits <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=B7Bj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
4 years
s390x builders are short on disk space?
by Kaleb Keithley
Hi,
three different builds of ceph have failed in the last 15 min. for lack of
space to untar the source.
Would someone check them out please?
thanks
--
Kaleb
4 years
Schedule for Mondays's FESCo Meeting (2020-05-25) — proposal to cancel
by Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Dear all,
there is nothing to announce, and nothing on the meeting agenda. Some
tickets are in progress, but I think we should continue the discussion
in tickets.
I propose to cancel today's meeting. If there's something urgent, we can
still hold it.
@nirik: maybe you could provide your weekly datacenter-move update by mail?
Zbyszek
4 years
