On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 17:53, Jerry James <loganje...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 8:25 AM Ben Cotton <bcot...@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
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 

Reply via email to