Hi Dave,
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org> skribis:
Toggle quote (17 lines)
> This addresses a potential performance problem, fixed in the post-0.2.20> source. It's intended for application to a package definition updated> to 0.2.20, which Ludo said is in the pipeline. Apologies that I don't> seem to have converged on an acceptable style for changes.>>>From 23ad3a438ef7bcd34e2354f6cbdede634f0188d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001> From: Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 12:48:29 +0000> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] gnu: maths: Fix cache size detected by openblas on some> x86_64.>> * gnu/packages/patches/openblas-Add-dummy-implementation-of-cpuid_count-for-the-CPUI.patch,> gnu/packages/patches/openblas-Use-cpuid-4-with-subleafs-to-query-L1-cache-size-on-.patch:> New files.> * gnu/packages/maths.scm (openblas)[source]: Use them.> * gnu/local.mk: Register them.
Thanks for the patch. Given the number of dependents, we would not pushit in master (info "(guix) Submitting Patches"). At the same time,since 0.2.20 is in core-updates and well on its way, do you think weshould keep those patches?
Perhaps in core-updates we could keep both 0.2.19 with these patches and0.2.20 (ISTR you said there were incompatibilities between these twoversions)? Would it make sense?
Thanks,Ludo’.