Re: PetSc

[Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp>]

In Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:23:14 -0500 Brian Mays <brian@debian.org> cum veritate scripsit :

> dancer@netfort.gr.jp (Junichi Uekawa) wrote:
> 
> >  I think you can actually try playing around with update-alternatives.
> > 
> > You could build-depend on mpich and lam, and build two versions
> > playing around with update-alternatives. (theoretically)
> > Not that I've tried.
> 
> Hmm ... In my opinion, if you're going to provide libraries built using
> two different MPI implementations, then you should name the libraries
> appropriately, so that the user knows which implementation is being
> used.
> 
> Therefore, I don't think that alternatives are necessary or are
> particularly desirable.

No, this comment was about the process of building, not about the
PetSc library being an "alternatives". I probably didn't make myself
very clear.

rationale:

In Debian, we only have a Build-Depends: mechanism where we got to install 
both (mpich and lam), or have a separate source tar.gz's (for building against mpich
and lam).

mpich and lam are alternatives, and which can be used to build 
the two versions, and it should work fine with autobuild machines too.
(it won't work under fakeroot, I believe).

The resulting binary, AFAIK are incompatible.

regards,
	junichi

--
University: ti0113@mail4.doshisha.ac.jp    Netfort: dancer@netfort.gr.jp
dancer, a.k.a. Junichi Uekawa   http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
 Dept. of Knowledge Engineering and Computer Science, Doshisha University.
... Long Live Free Software, LIBERTAS OMNI VINCIT.