Gentoo Archives: gentoo-science

From: justin <jlec@g.o>
To: gentoo-science@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-science] [PATCH 00/10] alternatives-2.eclass updates
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:14:06
Message-Id: 52DF6FB7.1000003@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-science] [PATCH 00/10] alternatives-2.eclass updates by "S├ębastien Fabbro"
1 On 21/01/14 23:46, S├ębastien Fabbro wrote:
2 > Some applications (I can see armadillo, scamp) actually use the
3 > atlas-specific routines clapack_* routines.
4 > We could aim at keeping both the library soname and filename as close to
5 > upstream, and add an option to the alternative framework to create a
6 > ldscript with a generic soname and filename, turned on for blas and
7 > cblas at least.
8
9
10 I would really like to see that ldscript to be present. it would solve
11 many propblems including linking in distutils against mkl.
12
13
14
15 >
16 > As a user, I don't particularly enjoy rebuilding octave, ROOT, R, or the
17 > scipy stack. @preserved-rebuild is more a hack than a feature.
18 > I don't know how many people actually switch providers, besides a first
19 > benchmark test. My guess is probably not many given the burden of
20 > re-compiling all the reverse dependencies and the previous fragility of
21 > the system.
22
23 But I still don't see the point of equalizing the soname. One advantage
24 I see from separate sonames is that you can link different applications
25 to different implementations. Of course this would require recompilation
26 of revdeps in case you remove one from your system. But I would argue
27 that switching/removing an implementation is a rare case for the average
28 user. Most will pick one or take the default aka reference
29 implementation and never touch it again.
30
31
32 Justin

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature