On 2019-07-23 13:32, J. Lewis Muir wrote:
May be moot since Thomas prefers PKGSRC_ BLAS_TYPES, but to anyone familiar with what BLAS is, I think this would be pretty obvious. They would know that the primary choices are Netlib, Atlas, Goto, OpenBLAS, MKL, all of which are meant to be interchangeable and I can't think of another way someone with that knowledge would interpret it. To other pkgsrc users, I agree that it would not be clear, but then they would not be creating packages that depend on BLAS or tweaking their mk.conf to select an implementation.On 07/23, Jason Bacon wrote:For mk.conf, I think PKGSRC_BLAS_TYPES would be OK, as would PKGSRC_BLAS (following examples PKGSRC_FORTRAN, PKGSRC_ADA, etc.) or PKGSRC_ACCEPTABLE_BLAS (following example PKGSRC_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES) I think the latter is better as it implies that this is a list, as does PKGSRC_BLAS_TYPES.The latter is PKGSRC_ACCEPTABLE_BLAS, and I don't see how it implies that it's a list. PKGSRC_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES implies that it's a list because LICENSES is plural. But BLAS is not plural; to be plural, it would need to be BLASES. Regards, Lewis
Cheers, JB