Re: ITP: mpi-defaults -- Meta-packages depending on appropriate MPI -dev and -bin packages for each platform
Adam C Powell IV <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.beowulf,gmane.linux.debian.devel.general,gmane.linux.debian.science |
|---|---|
| Organization | Debian GNU/Linux |
| Message-ID | <1227192312.5799.129.camel@workhorse> |
Hi again, and sorry for causing accidental posts to [email protected] -- I don't know how to do X-Debbugs-CC in Evolution. On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 12:35 +0100, Ondrej Certik wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Manuel Prinz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, den 19.11.2008, 09:05 -0600 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel: > >> I think we should put either debian or mpi first. How about > >> > >> mpi-default-{dev,bin} > >> > >> or even > >> > >> mpi-debian-default-{dev,bin} > >> > >> to make it even clearer that it is just 'us' (ie Debian) defining a default > >> for us, rather misconstruing that more than two decades (I'm guessing) of > >> competing mpi implementations have ended ? ;-) > > > > Good guessing. But I'm confident we can solve that problem in one way or > > another in a shorter time frame. > > > >> Comments ? > > > > Well, why not debian-default-mpi-{bin,dev}? ;) > > > > Seriously, I do not care that much. A name is a name. If we're lucky, > > the package might be gone by release of Squeeze. > > I like Dirk's suggestion more: > > mpi-default-{dev,bin} > > But as you said, a name is just a name. I like this suggestion, and have just posted the new package for comment in the alioth debian-science repository: git://git.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/mpi-defaults.git http://git.debian.org/?p=debian-science/packages/mpi-defaults.git;a=summary It uses the PETSc system, which Build-Depends on an arch-dependent MPI implementation, then rules uses readlink to determine which one is the default alternative, and sets substvars appropriately, whether openmpi, lam, or mpich*. That way, if we want to change the defaults, we just need to change the Build-Depends in control. In many other ways it follows the example of java-common. Also, I made it GPL 2+, and made the copyright in the model of java-common. Feedback anyone? Cheers, -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 189 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBJJXfyUm8B6FZO5LYRAoI/AJ9703D/1YaVwxVEUBIPcGuuI+z12wCfZJlv KAXVCfJosLO0dHdgruNFcvk= =XRqg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----