#2443 F33 System-Wide Change: FlexiBLAS as BLAS/LAPACK manager
Closed: Accepted 14 days ago by decathorpe. Opened a month ago by bcotton.

BLAS/LAPACK packages will be compiled against the FlexiBLAS wrapper library, which will set OpenBLAS as system-wide default backend, and at the same time will provide a proper switching mechanism that currently Fedora lacks.


With the GPLv3 Licensing / Linking issue resolved (packages linking against BLAS like normal and FlexiBLAS only acting as a shim at runtime), I think this looks good. +1

+1 assuming we wait for:

Consequently, the authors are going to add the "Linking over a controlled interface" exception in a new release, so that the GPLv3 terms do not apply to the BLAS/LAPACK interface.

Update: The author told me that the exception was added, but he is going to ship a bugfix too, so it may take a few days for testing before pushing the new release. I'll post another update here as soon as it lands in rawhide.

@iucar is the commit with the license change visible anywhere?

Not yet, so let's wait.

New release available. Files under the src directory contain the exception, e.g., this one.

I'm afraid that custom exception might need a statement from our legal.

@iucar can you please ask for review on legal@lists.fp.o ?

If we get input from @spot here, this will not be necessary.

I am no longer responsible for Fedora's Legal issues, however, this seems fine to me.

It's not custom, it's exactly this one. (But of course happy to ask in the list if you consider it necessary.)

It's not custom, it's exactly this one.

Oh, sorry about the confusion, you are right.

FYI: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859553. This makes no sense to me, but I asked him to please ask legal if he considers it necessary.

After well more than a week, I count the vote as (+3,0,-0). By policy, I am processing this proposal as approved.

Metadata Update from @bcotton:
- Issue tagged with: pending announcement

17 days ago

Metadata Update from @decathorpe:
- Issue close_status updated to: Accepted
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

14 days ago

I started this process 12 days ago with 14 packages, and there are several issues not directly related to the change itself:

  • Many packages use cmake, so I not only have to adapt the SPEC to build against FlexiBLAS, but also adapt it to conform to the cmake change proposal. That's fine, happy to help with this, but it's more work.
  • The mass rebuild process has happened (is happening?) at the same time, which means that, if a maintainer is not responsive, then I have to rebase PRs and that's a PITA; basically duplicate work.
  • Some maintainers are probably on vacation, which is great, but bad for me (see last point).
  • Some maintainers did make changes these days while the PR was open, so they either didn't notice it or just ignored it. So more rebasing for me.

In summary, from the initial 14 packages, only 5 are already merged 12 days later, and I rebased the remaining ones:

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but I would like to kindly ask for some help from a provenpackager, to merge the PRs above and the ones to come (I took some days off, but next week I will be working on this).

@iucar well, there certainly are worse places to ask, since there's a lot of provenpackagers reading these tickets :) You can ping me via IRC or email when things are ready and I'll help with merging / building

Many thanks, @decathorpe. The ones linked above are ready. The only possible issue is that I rebased some of them manually and the PR pages are missing commits in those cases, e.g. what we are discussing here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/DSDP/pull-request/2. I reported it upstream here: https://pagure.io/pagure/issue/4952. I hope this is just a bug in how Pagure shows the PR info, but the merge should be ok and contain all the commits.

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata