Bug#563705: MPI implementations in squeeze

[Adam C Powell IV]

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.

And we have libmpi.so and libmpi++.so symlinks, why not libmpif77.so? :)

-Adam
-- 
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Engineering consulting with open source tools
http://www.opennovation.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-science-maintainers/attachments/20100225/c86c7ddf/attachment.pgp>