Package Details: openblas-lapack 0.3.25-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/openblas-lapack.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: openblas-lapack
Description: Optimized BLAS library based on GotoBLAS2 1.13 BSD (providing blas, lapack, and cblas)
Upstream URL: http://www.openblas.net/
Licenses: BSD
Conflicts: blas, cblas, lapack, lapacke, openblas
Provides: blas, cblas, lapack, lapacke, openblas
Submitter: sftrytry
Maintainer: thrasibule
Last Packager: thrasibule
Votes: 91
Popularity: 1.03
First Submitted: 2013-11-20 23:53 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2023-11-13 19:08 (UTC)

Required by (560)

Sources (1)

Latest Comments

1 2 3 4 5 6 .. 15 Next › Last »

MarsSeed commented on 2023-12-10 19:17 (UTC) (edited on 2023-12-10 19:18 (UTC) by MarsSeed)

@thrasibule please hold back your ad hominem derogatory remarks. Throwing them at me and even at @muflone is disrespectful and not at all useful. It does not benefit the argumentation.

Also, in re:

@MarSeed "Also, pacman now wants to always replace this with repo's blas-openblas" you're the one who made sure this happens! That's a tautological argument.

This needs to be clarified. First, as you are surely aware, the replaces field of a package means that it supersedes an earlier package with a different name. In case of repo's blas-openblas, it was the decision of its maintainer, Felix Yan, to add 'openblas-lapack' to the provides, conflicts and replaces arrays of the new repo package. It was a carefully considered and legitimately decided change on his part, based on the merit of my earlier request/suggestion I made in FS#78781.

By defying and discrediting this, you are deliberately going against an Arch developer/maintainer and their decision. This is not useful to the community at all.

Also, Felix Yan has especially put a lot of attention to the new repo packages that provide the full openblas-lapack, and has expressed multiple times that he welcomes feedback and suggestions on that new PKGBUILD.

By ignoring his calls for such, and instead choosing to clutch at straws to find shallow, meritless arguments in favor of keeping an AUR package that has been superseded by a repo package with additional subpackages, and which is now in misalignment with repo's naming and splitting structure, you are actually harming the Arch and AUR community, and are wasting the valuable time and attention of Package Maintainers like @muflone.

thrasibule commented on 2023-12-10 18:24 (UTC)

@MarSeed Maybe you could spend your energy doing that instead of going on a mission to have a package deleted. That would be more useful to everybody, thanks.

MarsSeed commented on 2023-12-10 18:11 (UTC)

@thrasibule, if a package in the Arch repo is out-of-date, please flag it as such.

thrasibule commented on 2023-12-10 17:39 (UTC)

@muflone How do you enable extra features except by changing configure options? @MarSeed "Also, pacman now wants to always replace this with repo's blas-openblas" you're the one who made sure this happens! That's a tautological argument. Anyway you both are hell bent on deleting this package. Go ahead if that makes you happy. I disagree this is a benefit to the arch users. I'll maintain it in my private repo, and everybody else can use the out of date package in extra.

muflone commented on 2023-12-10 13:47 (UTC)

@thrasibule until now I cannot find a reason to keep this package. changing flags or enable optimizations is not enabling extra features.

still a duplicate package

MarsSeed commented on 2023-12-10 07:47 (UTC) (edited on 2023-12-10 07:48 (UTC) by MarsSeed)

@prs, this does not have additional features, it has less features. And it does not follow repo's new split package structure and its naming structure. Also, pacman now wants to always replace this with repo's blas-openblas, as that package together with its mandatory depends, repo's openblas, provides everything that AUR/openblas-lapack does.

There are repo packages and AUR packages that now depend on blas-openblas. This package just conflicts with that but does not have provides for that.

Its maintainer refused to acknowledge that AUR packages only have a right to exist while repo does not offer the same content. So it is kept solely for ego and pride, not for real, actual benefit.

prs commented on 2023-12-10 07:02 (UTC)

This package does follow 'packages having extra features enabled and/or patches in comparison to the official ones. In such an occasion the pkgname should be different to express that difference. ' Therefore I'd rather suggest keeping it. If there's a requirement for name change, 'openblas-lapack-release' or 'openblas-lapack-git' should be good choices.

prs commented on 2023-12-10 03:24 (UTC)

@MarsSeed, this package is not behind the official repo by a single version. You should check the pkgbuild for more details. Removing this will obviously make things harder for us and building this one from github source is not really feasible.

thrasibule commented on 2023-12-10 02:56 (UTC)

I'm relying on this: "Exception to this strict rule may only be packages having extra features enabled and/or patches in comparison to the official ones."

There is no bug here or in the openblas package. It makes a different set of choice of configure parameters. Some people might prefer having dynamic arch, some people don't.

muflone commented on 2023-12-10 01:58 (UTC) (edited on 2023-12-10 01:58 (UTC) by muflone)

Please read the AUR submission rules: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submission

If this build process could give benefits to others users, please file a bug on the openblas package in order to add this optimizations (if valid) to the repo's package.

1 2 3 4 5 6 .. 15 Next › Last »