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

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Andreas Beckmann <anbe at debian.org> wrote:
> On 2016-07-25 11:57, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
>> The Intel-distributed blob comes in three packages, a -base with
>> libOpenCL.so.2.0 (plus symlinks, plus the alternatives), and the
>> -intel-cpu packaged with the CPU ICD
>
> That was only two of them ...

Sorry, the third one seems to only provide an uninstall script.

> Does the Intel ICD work with our ocl-icd-libopencl1 ?

It seems to, in the simple tests I've run. (I'm actually running it
under ocl-icd-libopencl1.) The only issue I've see so far has been
bogus event timings, but those happen regardless of the loader in use.
Also under both loaders the driver only reports support for OpenCL 1.2
(but I thought they actually supported 2.0 already? Also their loader
is named .so.2.0 ... very odd).

> It should probably have
>   Depends: ocl-icd-libopencl1 (>= 2.2.0) | libopencl-2.0-1
> (the nvidia-libopencl1 only supports 1.x)

Well, there isn't a _native_ Debian package, even the “Ubuntu” package
that they ship is actually composed of RPMs, plus an install script
that may be tuned for Ubuntu rather than RedHat (but I didn't actually
compare).

The ICD RPM has opencl-1.2-base as hard requirement.

> And if the only problem is a stupid upstream installer, maybe it's
> better to write an installer package for Debian that asks where the
> downloaded blob can be found (via debconf) and extracts and installs
> only the parts that are useful on Debian.

Can alien manipulate dependencies when transforming packages? If so,
the Debian wrapper could do just that.

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta