Package Details: openblas-lapack 0.3.29-1

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: 92
Popularity: 0.000073
First Submitted: 2013-11-20 23:53 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2025-01-13 18:13 (UTC)

Required by (630)

Sources (1)

Latest Comments

1 2 3 4 5 6 .. 16 Next › Last »

liamtimms commented on 2024-03-13 03:06 (UTC)

@serebit, at times, some other AUR packages have relied on a version of numpy compiled with this version.

archisman commented on 2024-03-06 16:47 (UTC)

@serebit The feature is fast computation. I am unsure exactly why this AUR package is way faster than the official repo. Please see the discussion in https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=286531

serebit commented on 2024-02-27 19:21 (UTC)

@thrasibule What features does this package have that the packages in [extra] are missing? I took a look at the PKGBUILD, and I don't see anything that stands out other than enablement of USE_TLS and USE_THREAD. I'm fine with keeping this package in the AUR if there is a quantifiable difference between the features enabled by this package and the ones in [extra], but without that, being updated more frequently isn't a substantial enough reason to keep this package.

Muflone commented on 2024-01-13 17:10 (UTC)

Duplicated packages are not allowed in the AUR

If the official package has some package issue, please file a bug on Arch Linux's Gitlab

archisman commented on 2024-01-08 02:24 (UTC) (edited on 2024-01-08 02:49 (UTC) by archisman)

The openblas provided by the official repositories has critical bugs like https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=286531, whereas this AUR package does not have them.

Whoever is trying to delete this AUR package: you are just holding back Arch's potential in scientific computing, and that is not useful to the community. Please let people who use Arch for scientific computing decide whether this package is necessary or not. In case it were an unnecessary duplicate, then people would not use it at all. But that is not the case, unfortunately.

(I am a PhD student in Physics, and I require this package almost everyday)

TLDR: This package provides features that the one in the official repo does not provide, please don't delete it

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 .. 16 Next › Last »