Hi, I'd like to contribute towards a solution for this. I'm forwarding to debian-devel to get some others' ideas. On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:57:39AM +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > Le mardi 31 janvier 2012 à 21:56 -0600, Steve M. Robbins a écrit : > > Naively, I don't understand why netcdf can't offer multiple variants, > > just as hdf5 does. Or, at least, one package libnetcdf-mpi-dev that > > links with the "default" MPI implementation. > I am not involved in the netcdf. You should report a bug on this > package. I'm prepared to do so, but I'd first like to get agreement that netcdf is where the problem lies. Netcdf maintainers, please chime in! On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 05:44:49PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 04:41:06PM +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > > Even if I am not happy about this change, it is expected. > > libnetcdf-dev depends on libnetcdf7 which depends on libhdf5-7. > > libhdf5-openmpi-7 conflicts with libhdf5-7. > > > > Before I had the silly idea to become a hdf5 maintainer, I reported this > > bug myself #591346. > > For now, I haven't find the right solution to tackle this issue ... > > Suggestions are welcome. > > > > The solution is having upstream adopting a sane naming scheme for mpi-enabled > flavor libraries instead of using always the same names for all. Francesco, please clarify: are you speaking of the hdf5 upstream or the netcdf upstream? (Both?) What problem are you trying to solve with that: co-installable -dev packages or just coinstallable lib packages? > Unfortunately they were still not available for that at the time of > my last poking. Diverging from upstream is not a good idea, so we > still have to live in a non perfect world... I think we can no longer live in the status quo (see all the blockers of #631019), so something has to give. Even if it is painful, perhaps Debian could pioneer something and pass patches back to upstream? Thoughts? -Steve
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature