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

Re: building package with different libs

On 14 November 2008 at 23:12, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
| Howdy,
| On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 07:48:19PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
| > [Copying -beowulf as there's likely some interest there as well.]
| > 
| > On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 15:21 +0100, Manuel Prinz wrote:
| > > When building against OpenMPI, there are a few choices:
| > > 
| > >  1. Do not build packages using OpenMPI on the unsupported arches.
| > >  2. Build against OpenMPI on the supported ones, fall back to LAM on the
| > > unsupported ones.
|     [ ... ]
| > As for -lam where there's no openmpi, I only know of petsc and babel.

[ For r-cran-rmpi, I also fall back to using LAM where Open MPI is
missing. Perusing NEW today, I saw that Adam falls back to MPICH for the new
Arpack. May be a better fall-back, but I personally have used LAM and no
MPICH before Open MPI. I guess at some point we need to consolidate out MPI
efforts. ]
| I have subsequently adopted this approach for minc, which uses MPI via
| hdf5.  I will likely adopt it for boost, too, unless someone has a
| better idea.
| While reading this thread, however, I had an idle thought.  Could we
| prepare an "mpi-default-dev" or "sensible-mpi-dev" package for us to
| build-depend on?  This would be something like the gcc-defaults
| package and simply depend on the appropriate -dev pacakges (OpenMPI on
| some architectures, LAM on the rest).
| The idea is to put the messy details about which architectures support
| OpenMPI and which use LAM in one place.

Sounds good to me, and I am cc'ing the pkg-openmpi list. I won't have spare
cycles to work on it, but it strikes as a fundamentally sound suggestion.

And while we're at it, it may also make sense to try to come to a consensus
of our MPI 'preferences' within Debian. I.e. which one should be the default
and own the 'highest' alternatives level.  Also, I think we had to give up on
some alternatives usage because Open MPI had files the others didn't. I am a
little fuzzy on the details but if there is interest, Manuel can probably
fill in any details.


Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.

Reply to: