On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 20:22 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 26/02/10 at 10:46 -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 20:49 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > On 25/02/10 at 14:22 -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 18:10 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > > > > 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 understand that bug as: > > > > > if mpich2 or openmpi don't do the right thing when calling > > > > > mpif77/mpif90, then symlinks are needed. > > > > > > > > > > Is there a proof that either of them doesn't do the right thing? > > > > > Wouldn't it be more appropriate to fix them to do the right thing? > > > > > > > > > > (Those are honest questions -- I don't know anything about fortran) > > > > > > > > As discussed before (including in the bug), when there are mixed FORTRAN > > > > and C++ symbols, it's not clear whether to use mpif77/90 or mpic++. > > > > > > > > Also, it's a big convenience: a lot of packages make multiple > > > > executables and/or libraries, some of which use MPI and some don't. > > > > Pointing them to -lmpi -lmpi++ -lmpif77 for the MPI execs/lib > > > > directories seems easier than telling them to use mpicc and friends for > > > > some targets and gcc for others. > > > > > > I'm not sure I buy that, since mpicc & friends also hide include paths, > > > which are not handled with alternatives currently. > > > > Are you sure? > > > > % update-alternatives --display mpi > > mpi - auto mode > > link currently points to /usr/lib/openmpi/include > > /usr/lib/openmpi/include - priority 40 > > slave libmpi++.so: /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libmpi_cxx.so > > [And a bunch of other slaves] > > > > > It sounds more like a > > > way to break packages by getting them linked with the wrong version of > > > MPI. > > > Do you know of packages doing that already? > > > > I've used this in most of my packages: petsc, hypre, libmesh, the new > > netgen and med-fichier under development (pending togl and updated hdf5 > > respectively), and salomé under development. > > > > Why would this break packages, if they just build-depend on > > mpi-default-dev? If the mpicc/mpif77 etc. alternatives work, why not > > the includes and libs as well? > > OK. Since it's harmless anyway, could you prepare and test patches for > openmpi and mpich2? Since it would be a slave alternative, it doesn't > require any alternatives transition. Will do, thanks. I'll also need to patch (at least my) packages which use this, will get to that in short order. -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