Package Details: bart-git 0.8.00.r512.g2d6ec2d3-1

Git Clone URL: (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: bart-git
Description: Berkeley Advanced Reconstruction Toolbox (BART) for Computational Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Upstream URL:
Licenses: BSD
Conflicts: bart
Provides: bart
Submitter: Roosted7
Maintainer: Roosted7 (Nordwin)
Last Packager: Nordwin
Votes: 1
Popularity: 0.000000
First Submitted: 2019-08-28 10:15 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2023-09-19 10:08 (UTC)

Dependencies (10)

Required by (1)

Sources (2)

Latest Comments

MarsSeed commented on 2023-08-18 21:22 (UTC)

One small observation / recommendation: it would be best if you removed depends=openblas. Because blas-openblas already depends on repo's openblas (these two are actually split packages coming from the same repo PKGBUILD).

Also AUR's openblas-lapack provides openblas but not blas-openblas, so it might be confusing to users. The openblas-lapack package no longer aligns with repo's split openblas packages and therefore it is problematic (and its maintainer refuses to change anything to remedy that).

MarsSeed commented on 2023-06-15 13:51 (UTC)

Here is the existing bug ticket requesting that Arch provide the full openblas-lapack suite with all its bindings:

Nordwin commented on 2023-06-15 13:38 (UTC)

I am not sure. I mean, this way works fine. And it could be less ugly if we just switched bart to use pkgconfig to find blas and lapacke (as the files in /usr/lib/pkgconfig/{openblas,lapacke}.pc contain the correct paths)

MarsSeed commented on 2023-06-15 13:18 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the heads-up.

It is a bit of a weird choice by Arch packagers IMHO.

I would think they should have put the headers in the blas-openblas package and at the regular /usr/include/ path, rather than in the base openblas package which in itself lacks cblas, lapack, lapacke.

What do you think?

Should we raise an Arch bug report about it?

(I do not have experience in configuring builds with blas or openblas, dunno how interchangeable or not they are. So I cannot evaluate how good or bad is the Arch packagers' choice is in this regard.)

Nordwin commented on 2023-06-15 11:44 (UTC) (edited on 2023-06-15 12:17 (UTC) by Nordwin)

My mistake, switched to blas-openblas now.

It is just a bit ugly, as blas-openblas has the headers in a different location (/usr/include/openblas) compared to openblas-lapack (/usr/include). Therefore, we now need to add that include path in a Makefile.local

MarsSeed commented on 2023-06-15 11:41 (UTC)

TLDR; Please change depends openblas-lapack to blas-openblas.

Arch announced on June 14 a new blas-openblas repo package.

That is the same as the earlier AUR package openblas-lapack, providing the OpenBLAS implementation of blas, cblas, lapack, lapacke.

This means the openblas-lapack AUR package should be deleted.

Users and dependent packages should switch to using the blas-openblas repo package instead.

Nordwin commented on 2021-06-02 10:16 (UTC)

@liamtimms: can you test if it builds now? I am not sure why it is so unhappy with how I specified the gcc10 dependency...

Nordwin commented on 2021-05-25 17:19 (UTC)

Well, I am on holiday this week, but I'll see that it's fixed next week :)

liamtimms commented on 2021-05-25 14:28 (UTC)

Seems like something is going wrong in the install step sometime in the last week or so. Probably needs to be adjusted for what is going on upstream.

Nordwin commented on 2020-04-28 12:49 (UTC)

Hey Thomas, two questions:

1) Do you actually not need to change the BLAS_L in the Makefile anymore? It seems to be commented out in the current PKGBUILD

and 2) What do you think about adding GPU support? Not sure if you need it, and I don't know how to do this optionally in arch...