Thanks Manuel for the update... On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 16:32 +0100, Manuel Prinz wrote: > Hi all, > > this is a short status update on this topic. > > Am Montag, den 09.11.2009, 16:47 -0800 schrieb Nicholas Breen: > > * should we start filing wishlist bugs asking packagers not to build against > > MPICH (1) and LAM? > > I (finally) got around to file bugs against all packages build-depending > on LAM and/or MPICH. To my surprise, some maintainers already did the > transition, which I'm very happy about, and taking at as a sign that > this is a welcomed decision. There were only 10 bugs left, not included > the reverse deps of hdf5. You can get an overview via [1]. FYI I've made a patch for hdf5 to add a -mpi version which depends on the appropriate version for the platform. [1] But the maintainer didn't want to give up on the separate -lam, -mpich and -openmpi versions (no -mpich2 yet) -- which conflict with each other. And hasn't done anything with the patch in eight weeks... MPI-enabled MED and Salomé are waiting for this. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/510057 > There is not much progress so far with respect to changing mpi-defaults > to use MPICH2 instead of LAM on the architectures where Open MPI is not > available yet. This needs a round of binNMUs. Marc Brockschmidt said he > will look at the request to debian-release in the next few days, so this > might resolve soon as well. Something to consider: this will break a lot of packages which use FORTRAN until 563705 is fixed, and then that will require mods to packages. > I'd be very happy if we could get this transition done before the > release, let's see if that works out! The above will complicate this goal... -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part