[Pkg-opencl-devel] Alternatives system for libOpenCL?

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Andreas Beckmann <anbe at debian.org> wrote:
> On 2016-07-22 23:35, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
>> I would like to suggest enabling an alternatives-based system for
>> libOpenCL.so. Although allowing multiple libOpenCL so to coexist isn't
>
> Alternatives for a multiarch library. Good luck. Have fun.
>
> Do you want to have a separate alternative per architecture? (Easy.)
> Do you want to keep the alternatives on (foreign) multiarch
> architectures in sync?
> (What if an implementation is only available on a subset of architectures?)

I believe that separate alternatives for each architecture would suffice,

> If that Intel package does not use diversions to cooperate with existing
> packages, it is utterly broken!
> (And getting the diversions done right can be funny. Especially cleaning
> up after it was done wrong.)

Do diversions work even if only one (or some) of the packages provides
them? My understanding is that currently in Debian and Ubuntu there is
the assumption that only one libOpenCL (per arch?) can be installed at
a time anyway.

> PS: I had enough fun with this, leading to the creation of
> glx-alternatives :-)

I can try setting it up for libOpenCL, _if_ there is an interest for
supporting this kind of setups in Debian.

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta