[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: Paul Garlick
Subject: Re: LAPACK vs. OpenBLAS
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2021 13:32:59 +0100

Hi Ludo,

> A surprisingly large number of packages depend on ‘lapack’:

> Perhaps we could have a lint checker warning against the use of

Good idea.  Possibly with a helpful message along the lines of 'the
openblas package provides a LAPACK interface'.

I encountered this issue when packaging an optimization package [0]
recently.  The build system, cmake, requires a path to the BLAS_LIBRARY
and also a path to the LAPACK_LIBRARY.  One can see how the shared
library, provided by the lapack package, could be the
first (but mistaken) choice for the packager.

I notice that Debian [1] use NO_LAPACK=1 as an extra make option for
openblas.  This  has the effect of generating a file.

For the case of optizelle, the package I was working on, I labelled the
openblas input as "blas/lapack" to make it clear that the package has a
dual purpose.

Best regards,



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]