Re: BLAS in pkgsrc: present and future

[Jason Bacon <outpaddling%yahoo.com@localhost>]

On 2019-05-30 08:00, Dr. Thomas Orgis wrote:
> Am Thu, 30 May 2019 08:49:53 -0400
> schrieb Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>:
>
> > I wonder if it would be simpler to have a default value of
> > PKGSRC_BLAS_PREFERRED, if not set by the user.
> OK, so the mk file would use an internal _PKGSRC_BLAS_PREFERRED for
> that.
>
> > > The package uses PKGSRC_BLAS_TYPE for the build.
> > (same comment about a different variable)
> So, would it be the preferred way to use _PKGSRC_BLAS_TYPE in the
> package Makefiles? I don't care that much either way, but I want
> to make sure that this verbosity is consensus. I don't recall seeing
> that many _UNDERSCORE variable names in use.
>
> Is it still fine to have BLAS_LIBS and LAPACK_LIBS defined? Should those
> be _PKGSRC_BLAS_LIBS, _BLAS_LIBS?
>
>
> Alrighty then,
>
> Thomas
To recap/clarify, I would propose:

PKGSRC_BLAS_PREFERRED: User-settable list (usually mk.conf), defaults to 
netlib

PKGSRC_BLAS_ACCEPTED: List set by package

_PKGSRC_BLAS_TYPE: Internal, automatically determined by matching the 
above variables following the logic you described earlier, i.e. use the 
first match from the above lists, or if there is no match, use the first 
one listed in PKGSRC_BLAS_ACCEPTED.