Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 13:31:50 +0300 From: Konstantin Tokarev <annulen@yandex.ru> To: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bristol.ac.uk> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: policy on having the same routines in different library archives? Message-ID: <335051296642710@web20.yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: <20110202102816.GA58343@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> References: <20110202102816.GA58343@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
02.02.2011, 13:28, "Anton Shterenlikht" <mexas@bristol.ac.uk>: > I've put a port of Slatec together: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/151970 > > Recently I realised that some 110 routines in Slatec > are already present in math/blas, and the Blas versions > seem to be newer. > > % ar -t /usr/local/lib/libblas.a | sort > blas.sorted > % ar -t /usr/local/lib/libslatec.a | sort > slatec.sorted > % comm -12 blas.sorted slatec.sorted | wc > ššššš110 šššš110 šššš882 > % > > I can see benefits and disadvantages of having same > routines in different libraries. Advantages are > that a user can choose to only install Slatec, > with no Blas, and that no fine tuning of the > distribution is required. > Disadvantages could be extra size and potential > for confusion, e.g. when linking against both > libraries. > > Is there a FreeBSD ports policy on this? FYI: there are lots of BLAS implementations in the world, all of them having the same API. The same for LAPACK. -- Regards, Konstantin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?335051296642710>