On Sat, 2018-05-12 at 03:22 +0000, Lumin wrote: > Hi Sébastien, > > > But IMO it's acceptable to not perfectly deal with the > > corner case > > where only MKL is installed, as long as some warning is displayed. > > I insist on removing the Provides, even if it looks weird. For sake > of > debconf correctness, I can't find a better way other than removing > it. ... > As a compromise, let's regard MKL as a "non-free" enhancement to free > BLAS/LAPACK implementations. An Enhances: field should be nice for > us, > which alleviates the discomfort of leaving Provides: blank.
I wonder if the simplest solution is to just have intel-mkl Depends: libblas. i.e. use policy to simply prevent a sole mkl installation. That way, the mkl alternative will always have a free BLAS to press it's preference against. Drew
