On Sat, 2018-05-19 at 10:55 +, Lumin wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:49:05PM +0800, Drew Parsons wrote:
> >
> > 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
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:49:05PM +0800, Drew Parsons wrote:
>
> 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
On Sat, 2018-05-12 at 03:22 +, 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
>
Hi Sébastien,
> Using a Pre-Depends here is IMO wrong. Quoting Policy §7.2:
Thanks. I didn't notice that when considering ways to avoid corner
cases.
> I also think that removing the Provides is not a good idea. The alternative is
> provided by the package, and that should be made clear in the
On Sun, 2018-05-06 at 10:13 +0200, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
>
> Yes, but it’s the GPL that forbids distribution of a binary linking
> together
> GPL code and non-free code.
But we're not distributing GPL binaries for use with nonfree MKL, we're
distributing them to use with OpenBLAS or ATLAS.
Just forgot to CC the RFS bug.
- Forwarded message from Lumin -
Date: Sun, 6 May 2018 08:29:29 +
From: Lumin
To: sebast...@debian.org
Cc: debian-scie...@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Re: Bits about Intel MKL packaging -- Higher Priority
On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 08:00:53AM +, Lumin wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 10:03:38AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >
> > On 2 May 2018 at 14:41, Lumin wrote:
> > | Seems that things are getting more complicated. Recall that here we'are
> > | going to prevent users from GPL violation in
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 10:03:38AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 2 May 2018 at 14:41, Lumin wrote:
> | Seems that things are getting more complicated. Recall that here we'are
> | going to prevent users from GPL violation in situations such as this
> | one:
> |
> | debootstrap; apt
On 2 May 2018 at 14:41, Lumin wrote:
| Seems that things are getting more complicated. Recall that here we'are
| going to prevent users from GPL violation in situations such as this
| one:
|
| debootstrap; apt install libmkl-rt; apt install octave; octave ... (1)
Are you sure? I do not think
Hi Sébastien,
> > Since libmkl-rt Provides libblas.so.3, it is not totally safe even
> > if we set its priority to 1. That's because MKL will still be selected
> > when there is only one libblas.so.3 provider, namely MKL. Due to
> > this reason, I appended libopenblas-base as a dependency of
10 matches
Mail list logo