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

Re: mpich C++ translation (to the correct list)

On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 09:19:04PM +0900, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 20:18 -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > Status report:
> >       * petsc: done a long time ago
> >       * parmetis: fixed and done last week.
> >       * illuminator: finally got time to finish and upload yesterday;
> >         just fixed a bug which prevented building on alpha.
> >       * hypre: in progress, using -Wl,-z,defs brought a bunch of bugs
> >         out of the woodwork (reported upstream) which made this take a
> >         bunch of extra time.  And it does have C++ in its libs (without
> >         proper links), so it needs to make the transition. :-(
> > 
> > That's all of my affected packages.

> So what else is left?
>       * mpb: not built on m68k
>       * hdf5: not built on m68k, waiting for lam with m68k build trouble
>       * blacs-mpi: not built on m68k
>       * scalapack: not built on arm, m68k, powerpc+
>       * netpipe: needs new upload vs. new mpich?
> +scalapack on arm failed 2-3 weeks ago because new blacs-mpi was not yet
> built at the time; powerpc has an interesting build failure:
> /usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Nonrepresentable section on output

> AFAICT, that's it, or am I missing anything?  BTW, libffm needs to be
> hinted in with the rest of these.

> I'd like to upload a new petsc, any ideas on the timetable for these?

FWIW, we're very close now to being able to get everything into testing.
The remaining blockers are:

rmpi needs built on arm and hppa
scalapack needs built on arm, hppa, mipsel, and sparc
octave2.1 needs built on arm
octave-gpc needs built on alpha, ia64, and mips (but I've just found
  its non-free build-dep is RC buggy on alpha and ia64, so this will
  probably be dropped)
parmetis needs built on mips, or the old mips binaries removed by an
  ftpmaster, or the package removed from testing

So the bottleneck will most likely be arm/hppa, both of which have backlogs
at present (with build failures of r-base on hppa blocking rmpi besides).
If the delays are an issue, we might consider dropping rmpi and scalapack
from testing temporarily, but we at least need octave2.1 to go in.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: