[Pkg-opencl-devel] defaulting to installing all ICDs?

[Rebecca N. Palmer]

> The symbols files are really a pain for pocl
Does pocl need to have symbols files at all, given that the ICD 
mechanism bypasses ${shlibs:Depends}?

> Can you point me to an explanation of "install all Free ICDs by default" please?
My original proposal was 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-opencl-devel/Week-of-Mon-20140203/000076.html 
; recent discussion can be found at 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-opencl-devel/Week-of-Mon-20141110/date.html

However, given the problem that not all applications sanely handle 
platforms-without-devices, it isn't something we want to rush through 
without also modifying ocl-icd-libopencl1 to put the working platform 
first (as previously discussed: 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-opencl-devel/Week-of-Mon-20141110/000492.html 
).

> In Ubuntu, WINE is compiled against libopencl, and I think most users
> will never run an opencl windows application, so that is a lot of
> extra packages to be installed.
My proposal was "make opencl-icd default to all of them instead of 
picking one at random" (which may well be the wrong one for that user's 
hardware, LP#1264844), which doesn't do that.

There is a separate "make ocl-icd-libopencl1 Recommend opencl-icd" 
proposal ( 
http://sources.debian.net/src/ocl-icd/2.2.3-1/debian/control/#L23 ), but 
that wouldn't be allowed in Ubuntu because of their "main (supported, 
includes ocl-icd-libopencl1) can't Recommend universe (unsupported, 
includes beignet and pocl)" rule ( 
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuMainInclusionRequirements ).

(Having both main and universe binaries built from the same source 
package _is_ allowed, e.g. remmina, so this doesn't explain the lack of 
mesa-opencl-icd in Ubuntu; the changelog says this is deliberate, but 
gives no reason.)