(Resending with slight edit, because I sent it earlier from non-subscribed email address alias).
Dynamic architecture support used in the repo package means one binary can take advantage of a wide range of microarchitectures. Also, your build turns on USE_TLS, a "new, still somewhat experimental code that uses thread-local storage instead of a central memory buffer". Which is exactly what it should not do in a production-targeted, stable build. You should create a new package with a descriptive name suffix, like '-experimental-tls' or something. On 3 July 2023 19:33:04 GMT+02:00, Marcell Meszaros <[email protected]> wrote: >Arch repo openblas is already built with multiple microarchitecture support >through > cmake '-DDYNAMIC_ARCH=ON'. > >https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/openblas/ > >Your PKGBUILD, however, does not seem to enable the same for its build with >make. > >The latter also does not build 64-bit precision libraries, whereas the repo >buildscript does. > >So as of now, the new repo package is superior to this original AUR one, in >every aspect that you mentioned. > >On 3 July 2023 19:11:20 GMT+02:00, Guillaume Horel <[email protected]> >wrote: >>Openblas is a performance oriented package, microarchitecture optimization >>is exactly what it's about. Moreover this PKGBUILD has different build >>options than the official one which is allowed by the guidelines. >> >>On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 11:32 AM Marcell Meszaros <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> >>> > The package in community provides the dynamic arch version, whereas this >>> one will be specifically tuned for your current architecture. >>> >>> But this is not a good enough reason to keep PKGBUILDs for the same source >>> in both Arch repo and on AUR. >>> >>> Arch is not a binary-only distribution: all the build scripts are availabe. >>> >>> One can always grab a couple of PKGBUILDs from Arch repo's GitLab for >>> fine-tuned, microarchitecture-optimized rebuild, if that is what they want. >>> >>> But AUR submission guidelines are quite clear: they don't mention allowing >>> duplication for this purpose. >>> >>> >>> On 2 July 2023 17:34:03 GMT+02:00, Guillaume Horel < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> This is not the exactly the same package. The package in community >>>> provides the dynamic arch version, whereas this one will be specifically >>>> tuned for your current architecture. >>>> I've responded in the comments that there is nothing broken at the moment >>>> with this package, and I don't see the need to delete it. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 7:17 AM <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for openblas-lapack [2]: >>>>> >>>>> Same package is now in [extra], named blas-openblas: >>>>> >>>>> https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/blas-openblas/ >>>>> >>>>> See announcement about it: >>>>> https://archlinux.org/news/openblas-0323-2-update-requires-manual- >>>>> intervention/ >>>>> <https://archlinux.org/news/openblas-0323-2-update-requires-manual-intervention/> >>>>> >>>>> I have notified AUR maintainers in comments about their need to review >>>>> this change, and possibly adapt their PKGBUILD's. >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ >>>>> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/openblas-lapack/ >>>> >>>>
