virtual provides/metapackage for various OpenCL implementations

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

Dear maintainers,
I've just enabled OpenCL support in the gromacs package[1] and would
like to express a weak dependency on an OpenCL implementation, but I
have no way of doing so at the moment.

We have three packages which provide OpenCL implementations:
beignet - Intel GPUs
mesa-libOpenCL - AMD GPUs (only?)
pocl - CPU-based

Would it make sense to add a virtual provide to each of the packages
to mean the all provide a "vendor" OpenCL implementation? For example,
Provides: opencl-driver

Then, any package that makes use of OpenCL could add
Requires/Recommends/Suggests: opencl-driver

Another approach could be to create a meta package (named
opencl-drivers, for example - similar to xorg-x11-drivers) which would
depend on all vendor-specific implementations.

I guess the second approach is more fool-proof. Comments?

Regards,
Dominik

[1]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gromacs.git/commit/?id=dbabc099d66902d...
-- 
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org
"Faith manages."
        -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

[Fabian Deutsch]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
<dominik(a)greysector.net&gt; wrote:
>  Dear maintainers,
>  I've just enabled OpenCL support in the gromacs package[1] and would
>  like to express a weak dependency on an OpenCL implementation, but I
>  have no way of doing so at the moment.
>
>  We have three packages which provide OpenCL implementations:
>  beignet - Intel GPUs
>  mesa-libOpenCL - AMD GPUs (only?)
>  pocl - CPU-based
>
>  Would it make sense to add a virtual provide to each of the packages
>  to mean the all provide a "vendor" OpenCL implementation? For example,
>  Provides: opencl-driver
>
>  Then, any package that makes use of OpenCL could add
>  Requires/Recommends/Suggests: opencl-driver
>
>  Another approach could be to create a meta package (named
>  opencl-drivers, for example - similar to xorg-x11-drivers) which would
>  depend on all vendor-specific implementations.
>
>  I guess the second approach is more fool-proof. Comments? 
Hey,

yes - when we initially create the packages we actually already
discussed how to achieve this.

I'd favor the second (meta-package) approach, nothing should go wrong
if all three are installed.

I'd go even further and create an opencl package (or group?) to
install all kind of opencl packages, i.e. clinfo is a good thing to
start with.

- fabian

>  Regards,
>  Dominik
>
>  [1]
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gromacs.git/commit/?id=dbabc099d66902d...
>  --
>  Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
>  RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org
>  "Faith manages."
>          -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Thursday, 24 September 2015 at 14:44, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
>  On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Dominik 'Rathann'
> Mierzejewski
>  <dominik(a)greysector.net&gt; wrote:
>  > Dear maintainers,
>  > I've just enabled OpenCL support in the gromacs package[1] and would
>  > like to express a weak dependency on an OpenCL implementation, but I
>  > have no way of doing so at the moment.
>  >
>  > We have three packages which provide OpenCL implementations:
>  > beignet - Intel GPUs
>  > mesa-libOpenCL - AMD GPUs (only?)
>  > pocl - CPU-based
>  >
>  > Would it make sense to add a virtual provide to each of the packages
>  > to mean the all provide a "vendor" OpenCL implementation? For example,
>  > Provides: opencl-driver
>  >
>  > Then, any package that makes use of OpenCL could add
>  > Requires/Recommends/Suggests: opencl-driver
>  >
>  > Another approach could be to create a meta package (named
>  > opencl-drivers, for example - similar to xorg-x11-drivers) which would
>  > depend on all vendor-specific implementations.
>  >
>  > I guess the second approach is more fool-proof. Comments?
>  
>  yes - when we initially create the packages we actually already
>  discussed how to achieve this.
>  
>  I'd favor the second (meta-package) approach, nothing should go wrong
>  if all three are installed. 
Ok, thanks for your feedback.

>  I'd go even further and create an opencl package (or group?) to
>  install all kind of opencl packages, i.e. clinfo is a good thing to
>  start with. 
opencl-filesystem and opencl-headers could be merged, but opencl-utils
comes from a separate upstream (and bundles some OpenCL 1.0 headers[2]),
so it must be packaged separately.

Regards,
Dominik

[1]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gromacs.git/commit/?id=dbabc099d66902d...
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266184
-- 
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org
"Faith manages."
        -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"