On 1 March 2008 at 16:17, Riku Voipio wrote: | On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 09:26:25AM -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > You can do what I did for Rmpi and use Open MPI where available and LAM where | > not: | | > Build-Depends: debhelper (>> 4.1.0), cdbs, r-base-dev (>= 2.6.0), \ | > libopenmpi-dev (>= 1.2.4-5) [i386 amd64 alpha ia64 powerpc sparc], \ | > lam4-dev [!i386 !amd64 !alpha !ia64 !powerpc !sparc] | | > Nothing wrong with that. | | I think a portable solution would be better.
"Would" and "could" are great terms as there are millions of things we "could" improve around Debian. :) But we *do* currently build against MPI -- either Open MPI or LAM -- on all arches, so in my book the matter is at worst somewhat aethestically unpleasant, but not all that urgent. | > | Why not use libatomic-ops which includes atomic primitives for all | > | supported architectures and more? | | > Are you sure that these atomic ops are the one mssing in Open MPI? Could you | > provide a proof of concept for one arch so that I could take that to upstream? | | I don't really know anything about openmpi internals, but looking at | atomic-powerpc32-linux.s all but opal_sys_timer_get_cycles have similar | definitions in libatomic-ops-dev. Our invitation is still open -- come join the open-mpi lists and discuss it there. We need people with actual knowledge of a given arch, and access to such a box to do some testing. I'd help, but I know little beyond x86 and even then little about architecture matters. So join in the effort and make change happen. On the other hand, just standing on a soap box and wishing for a pony won't solve the issue. That's why the bug report is open. We brought it up once or twice on list and some people volunteered ... only to disappear thereafter. I really do appreciate the follow-up, but we need more concrete next steps. Dirk -- Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
