Re: MPI implementations in squeeze
Gee, I should stop posting past a certain hour of the day… ;)
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 18:08 -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> The .so alternatives symlinks only require that the libraries be
> API-compatible, which they are (or if not, it's a bug, since they're
> supposed to follow the MPI standard). That's why these links, and
> plain .so links in general, are in the -dev packages, not the shlib
> packages. It should be possible to compile any MPI program's source
> code against any implementation by linking -lmpi -lmpi++ etc.
>
> Then the resulting binary, shlib etc. includes the soname specific to
> the library it linked with, e.g. libopen-rte.so.0 . So if it's in a
> Debian package, the resulting binary depends on the ABI-correct library
> package, e.g. libopenmpi1 .
You're of course right. I somehow mixed several things up and got quite
confused. Open MPI indeed does use libmpi.so.0 for the name, all other
implementations don't. I probably mixed libmpi.so and libmpi.so.0 here,
among other things. (Though this is not really an issue, it might be
nice to build it as libopenmpi.so.0 or something.)
> If this still doesn't make sense, the libtool online documentation is
> pretty clear.
Now, awake and conscious, it makes perfect sense. The libtool doc is a
good read, nevertheless. Sorry for the noise! You're "nitpicking", as
you called it, was very welcome! :)
Best regards
Manuel
Reply to: