On 2023/10/14 12:58, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > Do you mean to say that having two ports producing different, but > equally named, libraries, is not possible in OpenBSD?
They either need the same ABI + API, or to be installed in separate dirs and ports using them need checking to make sure they pick up the right one. They can't be used interchangeably, a port using the lib would need to choose one or the other, and if there are multiple levels of dependencies both using functions from those libraries, that whole chain needs to pick the same one. (There is some mess with libsecp256k1 in two different ports but that is a hackish mistake and not something to be copied. Good thing it's not for anything important). > What's wrong in having an OpenBLAS port available, next to NETLIB > BLAS/LAPACK? That some obscure ports on obscure platforms might break? > > I really don't know any BLAS/LAPACK-using application which cannot use > OpenBLAS. Nor I know anyone who uses NETLIB BLAS/LAPACK for serious > computational work. > > Anyway, there is a totally safe way too (used with readline- where ereadline > library is produced by the modern readline in ports, and readline name > is reserved by the old, system one). Give libraries produced by OpenBLAS > different names (and put the headers in a different directory) > Surely this would require extra work for using it, but, well, better > this than nothing at all. Renaming the library is an utter pain and if it wasn't for the conflict with a library in base we would not want to do that. Separate directories is the most sane way to handle conflicts like that between two ports.
