[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Best place for .3 MPI man pages

Thank you Fabrice for the reply and sorry about the delay in following

On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 13:22 +0200, Fabrice Lorrain wrote:
> Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
> > Greetings,
> > 
> Hello Adam
> > For years now, there has been a conflict between mpi-doc and lam4-dev
> > because they both provide .3 MPI API man pages, such as
> > MPI_Comm_set_name.3.gz .
> Playing with apt-file and grep it seems that MPI_Comm_set_name.3.gz is 
> the only file causing problem :
> $ apt-file show bla > /tmp/bla with bla={mpi-doc,lam4-dev}
> $ for i in `grep man /tmp/mpi-doc | cut -d'/' -f 5`; do echo -n "$i : "; 
> grep -c $i /tmp/lam4-dev_man;done | grep ": 1"

Thank you for looking into that!  It seemed to me that there might be a
bunch, but you're right, that's the only one.

mpi-doc would be incomplete without it, so I don't want to leave it out.
That leaves two options: a diversion, which I don't know how to do and
seems a bit extreme for this situation, or alternatives, which would
require cooperation from the lam maintainer.

I think alternatives is the sensible way to do this, so unless other
ideas come from this list first, I'll take care of that in my next
upload, eliminate the Conflict, and file a bug against lam4-dev.

> > It's silly that the -dev package conflicts with a corresponding -doc
> > package, as was pointed out by Fabrice Lorrain in bug 310688.
> Thanks for resurrecting that old bug of mine.

No problem, it is a silly bug crying out for a quick fix!  Sorry I let
it persist for so long and get into etch.

> > So the question is: where is the proper place for these files, mpi-doc
> > or lam4-dev?  It seems like if they're in mpi-doc, there's less
> > duplication; if in lam4-dev they'd need to be repeated in all of the
> > libmpich*-dev packages.
> In case you forgot, there was already an attempt of a discussion on this 
> subject, see [1] and following.

Right, it ended with Camm sending a suggestion which I was supposed to
reply to.  Sorry about that. :-(

> PS : the link in your signature is broken.

D'oh!  Thanks.  Looks like there's no good comparable link.
Time for a new sig...

GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Engineering consulting using open source tools

Reply to: