-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 225
RFC: Discontinuing static-link library #3290
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
david-cortes-intel
wants to merge
2
commits into
uxlfoundation:rfcs
Choose a base branch
from
david-cortes-intel:rfc_remove_static
base: rfcs
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ | ||
# Discontinuing static-link library | ||
|
||
## Introduction | ||
|
||
When building oneDAL, it produces both shared libraries for dynamic linkage and | ||
static-link objects (`.a`/`.lib`). | ||
|
||
The produced builds are distributed through multiple channels, including PyPI, | ||
conda-forge, Intel's conda channel, Spack, NuGet, offline installers for Windows | ||
and Linux, and Intel repositories for Linux package managers like APT. | ||
|
||
Some of those distributions include only the shared library - for example, there | ||
are no static-link oneDAL libraries distributed in PyPI and NuGet due to file | ||
size constraints, nor in Spack. | ||
|
||
Most usage of oneDAL happens through the Python bindings with the Extension for | ||
Scikit-Learn, which only uses the shared library of oneDAL. Other known public | ||
consumers of oneDAL, such as | ||
[OAP MLlib](https://github.com/oap-project/oap-mllib) and | ||
[ML.net](https://www.nuget.org/packages/Microsoft.ML.OneDal/) also use the | ||
shared library, and do so in the way of creating another library with bindings | ||
for oneDAL that are exposed to final users in more convenient languages. | ||
|
||
We are not aware of any users of the static-link library of oneDAL, whether | ||
public or private, and it is unclear whether there are good use-cases for a | ||
static-link oneDAL library. | ||
|
||
Procedures from oneDAL are unlikely to be used as building blocks in a broader | ||
algorithm the way other libraries such as MKL would, and applications training | ||
or serving machine learning models for tabular data typically do so from | ||
interpreted languages like Python. Use-cases such as embedded devices, where | ||
usage of C++ for serving machine learning models might be more common, are | ||
unlikely to rely on algorithms for tabular data like the ones offered by oneDAL. | ||
|
||
Yet, the static library is bundled in many distribution channels even if it | ||
doesn't get used, increasing download sizes very significantly, and increasing | ||
compilation times during development due to required production of these files. | ||
|
||
## Proposal | ||
|
||
The proposal here is to not produce static-link files for oneDAL at all, and to | ||
discontinue the package `dal-static`. | ||
|
||
Being a large breaking change, this would need to be done in a major release | ||
such as 2026.0. | ||
|
||
## Open Questions | ||
|
||
* Do other UXL members rely on the static-link files? | ||
* Are there any known consumers of the static-link oneDAL library? | ||
* Would it be better to remove the static-link library altogether, or to leave | ||
it as a non-default option? It might be hard to test it properly if not built | ||
and distributed by default, but could be a reasonable compromise. |
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i would say it should be feasible to only keep build system support and have build and smoke test validation
As example - oneDNN only supports static through opensource build