Re: [Pkg-openmpi-maintainers] building package with different libs
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 22:25 -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> On 18 November 2008 at 23:03, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> | All things considered, OpenMPI has my vote as the most advanced
> | implementation right now...
>
> Thanks for that. Given that we need to order these (presented alphabetically)
>
> LAM ? MPICH ? Open MPI
>
> I suggest the following:
>
> i) LAM is last as upstream stopped and suggested moving to Open MPI; it is
> however widely available and stable so we want to keep (if someone maintains it)
>
> ii) MPICH is second per Adam's vote (== MPICH maintainer)
>
> iii) Open MPI becomes the default as it is very actively maintained upstream,
> modular, fairly advanced, etc ppp
>
> so we get
>
> Open MPI > MPICH > LAM
>
> in reverse alphabetical order. How cute :)
>
It sounds as if the appropriate default package may vary by
architecture; one of the beauties of the proposal to have one MPI
metapackage is that it can centralize that mess.
Can the alternatives priorities also vary by architecture? If not,
there could be an odd situation in which the default package might not
be the highest priority. I'm not sure the alternative mechanism is
necessary in this case, or even if that's what the ordering was
addressing.
Ross Boylan
Reply to: