Re: Mpich 1/2/3
Hi Anton,
I agree the renaming is confusing. From what I understand, with the
release of the MPI 3 standard last November, the MPICH developers
decided to have the matching MPI standard version appear in the MPICH
version number, but they judged MPICH2-3 would be too confusing, so they
renamed it back to MPICH. Things would have been simpler if they had
never named the rewrite from a few years ago MPICH2, with version
numbers 1.x, but simply MPICH-2.x, but it is too late to change history.
Simply, I believe that if Debian aligns the MPICH package name with the
upstream library, things may be confusing to old-timers for a few
months, but if it uses a different numbering, the confusion may be
initially less, but will last longer. I am not knowledgeable enough in
the package naming schemes to suggest anything better (perhaps
transitional package names might be useful here, but I am not sure they
are intended for this sort of situation, or whether they might not make
the situation even more complex).
Regards,
Yvan
Sunday 26 mai 2013 at 23:21 +0200, Anton Gladky wrote:
> Hi Yvan,
>
> 2013/5/26 Yvan Fournier <yvan.fournier@free.fr>:
> [..]
> > Finally, using the same naming policy as the MPICH developpers
> > themselves (referring to the old MPICH as MPICH1, and renaming MPICH2 to
> > MPICH when they upgraded to version 3) seems like a sane thing to do,
> > and again, the best way to avoid confusion.
>
> I mostly agree with you, but I think this proposed renaming schema is
> a little confusing.
>
> Anton
Reply to: