On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 17:53, Jerry James <loganjerry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 8:25 AM Ben Cotton <bcotton(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Mechanisms such as update-alternatives and modules have been discussed
> in the past, but were considered improper (the former) or faced
> technical issues (the former).
I think the latter instance of "the former" should be "the latter".
:-)
Yes, already fixed in the change page, thanks. :)
> # Recompilation of all BLAS/LAPACK-dependent packages linking
against
> FlexiBLAS instead of the current implementation they are using (just
> changing a BuildRequires line should be sufficient in most cases,
> unless a SPEC has something hardcoded somewhere else).
Speaking as maintainer of several packages that use BLAS/LAPACK, I
think the effort required may be a bit more than this paragraph
suggests, but it is worth doing. Thanks for working on this, Iñaki!
I just did the easy part. :) Thanks to the upstream maintainer,
Martin, who has listened to all the feedback I had, fixed a bunch of
things and prepared a new release ready for this proposal in no time.
BTW, I would also like to discuss here, as part of this proposal,
which backend should be the system-wide default. I believe we all
would agree that OpenBLAS nowadays is the best choice. But then, the
serial or the openmp version?
--
Iñaki Úcar