Re: Building MPE for LAM.

[Camm Maguire <camm@enhanced.com>]

Greetings!  Sorry for the delay -- have been away from my mail for
some time.

I think this is a good idea in general, but am wondering:

1) is it mpich specific?  wouldn't mpe-source be better?

2) So the only "binary" of the package is the tar.bz2?  If so, then
   that's great.  If instead you are referring to a package 'whose
   source package' containst the mpe source, then from my experience
   packaging atlas, the build-daemon maintainers won't like this  They
   often don't even have apt setup on the daemons.  So I'm having to
   duplicate the lapack source into atlas, for example.  Would love to
   see some policy on this, as it appears wasteful, but it could be
   that we would both need to duplicate the source if packaged in this
   manner. 

3) Have you used mpe?  Is it useful?

Take care,

Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp> writes:

> Hi,
> 
> I am thinking of making 
> "mpich-mpe-source" package, which contains a .tar.bz2 of 
> MPE source-tree, so that LAM can extract it at build-time,
> to create MPE for LAM.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> -- 
> dancer@debian.org  http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Camm Maguire			     			camm@enhanced.com
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah