OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

Mad Fish · 2010-05-30 22:11:41

Currenly to have OpenCL I must use package from AUR.
OpenCL is included in NVIDIA driver package, so why not to install it with all other things together?

wonder · 2010-05-30 22:21:00

not a real reason.

you can actually vote for inclusion here: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18486

Mad Fish · 2010-05-30 22:34:46

wonder wrote:

not a real reason.

Imagine that wonderful day when desktop applications start using GPU-accelerated code. They would probably need the library installed, right?

wonder · 2010-05-30 23:00:00

Mad Fish wrote:

wonder wrote:
not a real reason.
Imagine that wonderful day when desktop applications start using GPU-accelerated code. They would probably need the library installed, right?

i actually have no idea what is OpenCl and no real interest to find out since i don't need it. For me is just useless junk.

ngoonee · 2010-05-31 00:26:57

Mad Fish wrote:

wonder wrote:
not a real reason.
Imagine that wonderful day when desktop applications start using GPU-accelerated code. They would probably need the library installed, right?

Come back and talk about it when that 'wonderful day' arrives. You know, my desktop uses GPU-accelerated code already (compiz and cairo-dock), only its called OpenGL which is actually a free standard. Not OpenCL which is (to the best of my knowledge) nVidia specific.

flamelab · 2010-05-31 02:17:59

Mad Fish wrote:

wonder wrote:
not a real reason.
Imagine that wonderful day when desktop applications start using GPU-accelerated code. They would probably need the library installed, right?

OpenCL is a developers' only (mostly) library, that isn't actually needed by ... any app right now. When the day comes when the apps will use the CUDA Nvidia cores, it shall be could reason for their official inclusion.

Blind · 2010-05-31 03:18:48

Well, kinda funny - how do you expect for applications to arrive if you don't include the library? Or do you not expect developers to use Arch?

OpenCL is neither NVIDIA specific nor a closed standard; it's supported by NVIDIA, AMD, Apple, Intel and a whole bunch of other big hardware companies. Actually, the group that writes the standard is the same as the one that makes OpenGL.

Please get the facts straight - I think this is a perfectly valid request, and in particular Linux should support OpenCL wherever it can.

FYI:
http://www.khronos.org/

Blind

edit: trying to be more clear

Last edited by Blind (2010-05-31 03:27:52)

Mad Fish · 2010-05-31 06:41:12

wonder wrote:

i actually have no idea what is OpenCl and no real interest to find out since i don't need it. For me is just useless junk.

That logic just makes me sad. Why are you then discussing about inclusion of the thing you don't have any clue about?
Sounds like "I don't use GNOME - no need for GNOME in repos" or something like this.

OpenCL is an open standard for GPGPU. It IS a part of graphics drivers. When I install "nvidia" package (which is supposted to be an official NVIDIA graphics driver) I think that it should install all of the things included in that driver.

Currently, it installs CUDA libraries (also GPGPU, but specific to NVIDIA), but no OpenCL. I can't see any logic here.

"Vote for inclusion". What a bureaucracy... These are so trivial things (a few lines added to a PKGBUILD), and the reasoning is so obvious (for anyone who knows what OpenCL is), so it should just be quitely done. No, we have to vote, to wait? For what?

wonder · 2010-05-31 08:50:26

Mad Fish wrote:

wonder wrote:
i actually have no idea what is OpenCl and no real interest to find out since i don't need it. For me is just useless junk.
That logic just makes me sad. Why are you then discussing about inclusion of the thing you don't have any clue about?
Sounds like "I don't use GNOME - no need for GNOME in repos" or something like this.

i didn't wanted to discuss. you made me reply because you quote my message and this is the way i think about OpenCL.

"Vote for inclusion". What a bureaucracy... These are so trivial things (a few lines added to a PKGBUILD), and the reasoning is so obvious (for anyone who knows what OpenCL is), so it should just be quitely done. No, we have to vote, to wait? For what?

Now to be more reasonable. We make our package the way we want. The reason because OpenCL is not there is because nobody had time/wants to add support, because the nvidia installer sucks since the maintainer have to look every time for new files inclusion.

chiefsittingduck · 2010-05-31 15:29:12

Given that OpenCL is an open standard for GPGPU work on a variety of GPUs, then it follows that OpenCL should remain as its own package and that the inclusion of it in the repositories should follow the normal procedure. I have a non-Nvidia card and very much prefer being able to install OpenCL without installing an Nvidia driver.

Mad Fish · 2010-05-31 20:27:55

chiefsittingduck wrote:

Given that OpenCL is an open standard for GPGPU work on a variety of GPUs, then it follows that OpenCL should remain as its own package and that the inclusion of it in the repositories should follow the normal procedure. I have a non-Nvidia card and very much prefer being able to install OpenCL without installing an Nvidia driver.

Drivers are installing OpenGL library (libGL), so why shouldn't they install libOpenCL? For absolutely the same reasons. This lib is vendor-specific, and should be installed by driver.

Blind · 2010-05-31 21:40:11

I think that wonder did the right thing to point to the link to vote for inclusion. This is the standard procedure here, and I hope that the maintainer of the package is aware of the problem now. I also don't believe that this is much additional work - there even is already a PKGBUILD diff in the bug report.

Overall, I haven't seen one good argument here *not* to include OpenCL driver (only a lot of FUD - again: get the facts straight!). After all, they are drivers and will allow the use of the hardware to the fullest extent possible, plus enable development on that hardware.

Just my 2c.

Cheers,
Blind

ngoonee · 2010-05-31 22:47:55

I myself haven't seen one good argument *for* including OpenCL. Nothing uses it yet. Arch is not Debian, packages can be updated to included whatever you want in a matter of a day or so. When the first app using it comes out (and is in the repos) then it can be included, and I'm sure it WILL be included really fast.

Till then, why have another lib which nothing uses sitting on my machine? For now the solution is probably nvidia-opencl in the AUR.

Random question, if AMD and Intel are behind this, do OpenCL libs get installed with their drivers?

Blind · 2010-06-01 02:29:24

Well, that is just like...your opinion, man! [(c) The Big Lebowski]

I guess I have a different opinion: I cannot comprehend that the packager of the NVIDIA drivers package would want to arbitrarily limit the functionality of the hardware he is packaging the drivers for...I am just completely at a loss here, and "lack of software" is (once again) not a valid reason in my (screwy) mind.

AMD has a OpenCL driver included in their Stream SDK for Windows already. Have not heard anything from Intel yet. But yes, these things would get installed with *their* drivers, and if those were bundled in Arch packages as well, that would be really nice for peeps who develop in OpenCL.

The point of OpenCL (stands for Open Computing Language, btw) is to make (in particular scientific) computing device independent (GPGPU vs CPU); as opposed to CUDA, the NVIDIA specific language, this is - as mentioned - an open standard without vendor lock-in, thus highly desirable for platform and vendor independent programming.

If you are not that much into scientific computing, don't expect apps too soon. But may we (as in developers for GPGPUs) have the few hundred kB that let us use our graphis card in new ways anyways in the standard Arch LInux drivers? Maybe you will later find apps that come out of our effort (being made on the Arch Linux platform) useful

ngoonee · 2010-06-01 12:54:14

You can, just write nvidia-opencl and put it in the AUR for all other like-minded folk. That's the Arch way, not asking for inclusion of non-used libraries in a package which at least 20% (rough guess) of all Arch users have installed.

mrunion · 2010-06-01 13:56:05

Agree with ngoonee -- you want it, write a PKGBUILD and stick it in the AUR. If it becomes main stream enough, I'm sure the Arch people will do what's best for the majority. (And I use nVidia stuff, AND I'm a developer -- AND I'd rather install the package SEPARATELY without hacing it inculded in the nVidia driver myself. That's MY opinion. YMMV.)

And as for other software needing it or not, if any software comes along that needs it, I'm sure any OpenCL package would get picked up as a dependency (if and when it's made). Pacman is good like that! And I disagree with the thought that developers probably won't use it becasue it's not an included package. Developers are smart enough to know how to install dependencies.

Mad Fish · 2010-06-01 15:18:51

Okay, but then either CUDA library should be removed from nvidia-utils to separate package, or OpenCL should be included too.
For consistency.

But separating official driver package into many packages is not good idea, IMHO. It confuses people. When I install what is supposed to be an official NVIDIA driver, I expect it to contain all the things that NVIDIA included into it.

Blind · 2010-06-01 15:35:45

@ngoonee,mrunion:
I know I can make the PKGBUILD. That is not the point here.
[Actually, I could argue the other way: if you _don't_ want it, then create your own AUR package nvidia-noopencl - there are many of such AUR packages. You could actually remove CUDA from that, too.]

The point is: Is it the "Arch way" to support developers of software by providing complete hardware drivers, or not?
(If you want to bring up the term "Arch way")

Cheers,
Blind

Edit:
And picking up what MadFish just said - isn't it the "Arch way" to keep upstream packages the way they are?
[Actually, I don't like to argue with the "Arch way" - sounds way to much like "shut up". So please don't take offense, and only consider the argument here.]

Last edited by Blind (2010-06-01 16:01:35)

frigaut · 2010-06-02 02:06:09

Hey, this debate is getting kinda hot...
@ngoonee: for someone so well informed as you are usually, you were actually somewhat misinformed (and quite positively so) on this one:

ngoonee wrote:

You know, my desktop uses GPU-accelerated code already (compiz and cairo-dock), only its called OpenGL which is actually a free standard. Not OpenCL which is (to the best of my knowledge) nVidia specific.

I guess you stand corrected now, but openCL is actually an open standard adopted by most of the GPU manufacturers (exactly the equivalent of openGL).

Now, I think Blind and Mad Fish have a point, but I have to admit that openCL is still not much used. It's yet probably too early to include it in the official repo, or at least in the nvidia driver distribution. Blind and Mad Fish: an AUR package is so easy to install (if it's maintained properly) that I really don't see the issue. Just make a clear archwiki page about openCL and it'll be no problem.

ngoonee · 2010-06-02 05:27:09

My bad on the OpenCL being nvidia-specific, I thought it was an update to CUDA. In any case, we could argue about the Arch Way in circles (simplicity vs pure upstream, both have big exceptions in CURRENT repo packages). In the end, its up to the maintainer.

Blind · 2010-06-02 05:58:23

Agreed

.:B:. · 2010-06-02 20:31:20

Blind wrote:

Well, kinda funny - how do you expect for applications to arrive if you don't include the library? Or do you not expect developers to use Arch?

If someone needs it, they will build it from the AUR. If you are not willing to use AUR packages, then you should get a campaign going to get that AUR package so many votes some TU will adopt it and put it in [community]. That's how it works. If that doesn't work out, you'll have to make do with building AUR packages or look for alternatives outside Arch if that does not satisfy you.

Just because some app might need that library somewhere in the future or because some soul might find it useful does not mean it should and will be maintained by a dev - or a TU.

Blind · 2010-06-02 22:03:03

Is that official ArchLinux policy, or your opinion?

I already said that the initial response by wonder was the right thing to do, and I don't have a problem with that (if you cared to read).

I am merely investigating the policy here which appears to be inconsistent for this package, and this fact could easily changed.

ngoonee · 2010-06-02 22:38:49

As I understand, the primary policy in Arch is "if someone is willing to do the work". Of course, given the rest of the devs and TUs don't see a big issue with it, there's exceptions like AUR helpers etc.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-05-30 22:11:41

OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#2 2010-05-30 22:21:00

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#3 2010-05-30 22:34:46

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#4 2010-05-30 23:00:00

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#5 2010-05-31 00:26:57

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#6 2010-05-31 02:17:59

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#7 2010-05-31 03:18:48

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#8 2010-05-31 06:41:12

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#9 2010-05-31 08:50:26

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#10 2010-05-31 15:29:12

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#11 2010-05-31 20:27:55

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#12 2010-05-31 21:40:11

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#13 2010-05-31 22:47:55

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#14 2010-06-01 02:29:24

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#15 2010-06-01 12:54:14

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#16 2010-06-01 13:56:05

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#17 2010-06-01 15:18:51

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#18 2010-06-01 15:35:45

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#19 2010-06-02 02:06:09

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#20 2010-06-02 05:27:09

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#21 2010-06-02 05:58:23

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#22 2010-06-02 20:31:20

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#23 2010-06-02 22:03:03

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

#24 2010-06-02 22:38:49

Re: OpenCL in nvidia package from [extra]

Board footer