Bug#800600: RFS: arrayfire/3.1.2+dfsg1-2

[Ghislain Vaillant]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "arrayfire"

* Package name: arrayfire
  Version : 3.1.2+dfsg1-2
  Upstream Author : ArrayFire Development Group
* URL : http://arrayfire.com/
* License : BSD
  Section : science

It builds those binary packages:

  libarrayfire-cpu-dev - Development files for ArrayFire (CPU backend)
  libarrayfire-cpu3 - High performance library for parallel computing
(CPU backend)
  libarrayfire-cpu3-dbg - Debugging symbols for ArrayFire (CPU backend)
  libarrayfire-doc - Common documentation for ArrayFire

To access further information about this package, please visit the
following URL:

  http://mentors.debian.net/package/arrayfire

Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

  dget -x 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/arrayfire/arrayfire_3.1.2+dfsg1-2.dsc


Changes since the last upload:

  * Use generic BLAS / LAPACK build dependencies instead of OpenBLAS:
- d/control: replace libopenblas-dev with libblas-dev | libblas.so +
  liblapack-dev | liblapack.so,
- d/p/fix-cblas-detection: detection of BLAS in upstream cmake find
  module.
Reason: libopenblas-dev is not available for all architectures.
  * Remove source override on docs/highlight.pack.js.
Reason: source file(s) no longer distributed.

Best regards,
Ghislain Vaillant

Bug#800600: RFS: arrayfire/3.1.2+dfsg1-2

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

control: owner -1 !

Hi,

the packaging looks good, however I'm not sure about this [1]

apt-get install libblas.so
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree 
Reading state information... Done
Package libblas.so is a virtual package provided by:
libopenblas-dev 0.2.14-1
libblas-dev 1.2.20110419-10
libatlas-base-dev 3.10.2-7
You should explicitly select one to install.


[1] 
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-science/packages/arrayfire.git/commit/?id=db0fef7ddf6bdaecb49196c78ea64d87446b11d6


cheers,

G.

Bug#800600: RFS: arrayfire/3.1.2+dfsg1-2

[Ghislain Vaillant]

On 01/10/15 16:20, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:

control: owner -1 !

Hi,

the packaging looks good, however I'm not sure about this [1]

apt-get install libblas.so
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Package libblas.so is a virtual package provided by:
libopenblas-dev 0.2.14-1
libblas-dev 1.2.20110419-10
libatlas-base-dev 3.10.2-7
You should explicitly select one to install.


[1] 
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-science/packages/arrayfire.git/commit/?id=db0fef7ddf6bdaecb49196c78ea64d87446b11d6


cheers,

G.



> You should explicitly select one to install.

Which is what libblas-dev | libblas.so is supposed to do (default to 
libblas-dev if no existing libblas.so). FYI, There are other packages 
adopting the same technique (see c.d.n).


Tested both on my local machine which has libopenblas-dev installed and 
a chroot which then installs libblas-dev and liblapack-dev.


As a result, the binary package gets a Depends on libblas3 | 
libblas.so.3 and a liblapack3 | liblapack.so.3, which is generic way of 
handling blas and lapack via update-alternatives.


Ghis

Bug#800600: RFS: arrayfire/3.1.2+dfsg1-2

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

Hi, I'm really interested in examples from c.d.o :)

not about this bug, but about some packages I comaintain that might have 
benefits from this!


(sorry but I cant search from my phone...)


cheers,


G

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From:"Ghislain Vaillant" 
Date:Thu, 1 Oct, 2015 at 19:09
Subject:Bug#800600: RFS: arrayfire/3.1.2+dfsg1-2

On 01/10/15 16:20, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> control: owner -1 !
>
> Hi,
>
> the packaging looks good, however I'm not sure about this [1]
>
> apt-get install libblas.so
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Package libblas.so is a virtual package provided by:
> libopenblas-dev 0.2.14-1
> libblas-dev 1.2.20110419-10
> libatlas-base-dev 3.10.2-7
> You should explicitly select one to install.
>
>
> [1] 
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-science/packages/arrayfire.git/commit/?id=db0fef7ddf6bdaecb49196c78ea64d87446b11d6
>
>
> cheers,
>
> G.


>

> You should explicitly select one to install.



Which is what libblas-dev | libblas.so is supposed to do (default to 
libblas-dev if no existing libblas.so). FYI, There are other packages 
adopting the same technique (see c.d.n).

Tested both on my local machine which has libopenblas-dev installed and 
a chroot which then installs libblas-dev and liblapack-dev.

As a result, the binary package gets a Depends on libblas3 | 
libblas.so.3 and a liblapack3 | liblapack.so.3, which is generic way of 
handling blas and lapack via update-alternatives.

Ghis

Bug#800600: RFS: arrayfire/3.1.2+dfsg1-2

[Ghislain Vaillant]

Quite a few examples here:

https://codesearch.debian.net/perpackage-results/libblas-dev%20|%20libblas.so/2/page_0

Cheers,
Ghis


On 01/10/15 20:28, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:

Hi, I'm really interested in examples from c.d.o :)
not about this bug, but about some packages I comaintain that might have
benefits from this!

(sorry but I cant search from my phone...)

cheers,

G

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
<https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>


*From*:"Ghislain Vaillant" <ghisv...@gmail.com>
*Date*:Thu, 1 Oct, 2015 at 19:09
*Subject*:Bug#800600: RFS: arrayfire/3.1.2+dfsg1-2

On 01/10/15 16:20, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
 > control: owner -1 !
 >
 > Hi,
 >
 > the packaging looks good, however I'm not sure about this [1]
 >
 > apt-get install libblas.so
 > Reading package lists... Done
 > Building dependency tree
 > Reading state information... Done
 > Package libblas.so is a virtual package provided by:
 > libopenblas-dev 0.2.14-1
 > libblas-dev 1.2.20110419-10
 > libatlas-base-dev 3.10.2-7
 > You should explicitly select one to install.
 >
 >
 > [1]
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-science/packages/arrayfire.git/commit/?id=db0fef7ddf6bdaecb49196c78ea64d87446b11d6
 >
 >
 > cheers,
 >
 > G.

 >

 > You should explicitly select one to install.


Which is what libblas-dev | libblas.so is supposed to do (default to
libblas-dev if no existing libblas.so). FYI, There are other packages
adopting the same technique (see c.d.n).

Tested both on my local machine which has libopenblas-dev installed and
a chroot which then installs libblas-dev and liblapack-dev.

As a result, the binary package gets a Depends on libblas3 |
libblas.so.3 and a liblapack3 | liblapack.so.3, which is generic way of
handling blas and lapack via update-alternatives.

Ghis