Mo,
Generally in favour as I usually opt for faster OpenBLAS as defaults as well. But allow me to mention one cautionary tale that is very current. Besides the Debian work, I am also upstream for a few R packages. One or two have reasonably become popular and widely ysed, and I run what we call 'reverse-depends' in R/CRAN land: check all packages that depend on it. Which, for Rcpp, is close to 2000 now :-/ To help a little, I have access to an old VM in a data center in Europe where I run plain Debian testing. I had a few packages reliably and repeatedly fail (small parts of) their 'R CMD check ...' tests until a few days ago when I, very reluctantly, replaced libopenblas* with the fallback slow reference blas. Now tests pass. Of course, this was not pervasive. In the most recent case it affect three out of 700+ packages for RcppArmadillo. This is not an indictment of OpenBLAS. It is maybe simply a reflection of some tests being too tight. I really don't know. Maybe it really is just a reiteration of 'what every computer scientist needs to know about floating point' ... But _in practice_ these libraries are never as _perfectly_ interchangeable as we think they should better _in theory_. That said, more choices are better than fewer so I'd love for you to continue your work so that I can also try Blis :) Dirk -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org