On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 14:38 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi again, > > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 11:05:02AM +0000, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > > > Hmmm, this message droped in my inbox after uploading. I'm not sure how > > > important this might be - in any case the package has built nicely. > > > > Both libblas-dev and libblas-dev | libblas.so would lead to successful > > builds on autobuilders. The latter always pick libblas-dev in case an > > alternative implementation is not already installed. > > OK, so there is no real point to change anything since I only use clean > chroots for building (and expect others to do so as well at least before > uploading, right?
I'd say this change is probably not a reason for releasing a new iteration of the package. However, not all users build from chroots and those would enjoy being able to use their preferred BLAS implementation. > > It is only a big deal for local builds, where you might have a BLAS > > compatible package already installed (which provides libblas.so). For instance, there is a significant difference in build time for src:shark whether you build it with libblas-dev or libopenblas-dev. The testsuite runs much faster with the latter, but it is not available on all architectures. libblas-dev | libblas.so ensures that I can use OpenBLAS in local builds and NetLib's BLAS in chroots / autobuilders. Ghis
