Re: updating mpi-defaults (decommissioning lam)
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 00:51 -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> I think that it is the case indeed.... since the migration is
> unavoidable and versioning the dependency on mpi-defaults is not
> appropriate for this case, why not simply upload mpi-defaults 1.0
> directly to unstable?
I guess Manuel's idea was to test first (under experimental) that
packages would build fine under mpi-defaults[mpich2]. Certainly my
intention with gerris was just to check the build result. With the
result being somewhat odd and unexpected, but not because of mpich2.
I think there were questions regarding some other packages, in relation
to whether they'd build fine under mpich2 instead of lam, see
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> > Drew Parsons <email@example.com> writes:
> > > 1) why is the experimental buildd not using the latest experimental
> > > package?
> > Typically because the build dependencies weren't strict enough to force
> > it to, as experimental autobuilders otherwise favor versions from
> > unstable. I haven't checked whether that applies to this particular
> > case, though.
> =------------------------------ /v\ ----------------------------=
> Keep in touch // \\ (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com
> Yaroslav Halchenko /( )\ ICQ#: 60653192
> Linux User ^^-^^