On 11/11/09 at 14:07 +0100, Manuel Prinz wrote: > As for the mpi.so thing: Forget about it, confusion on my part. Not a > problem at all. > > On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 13:54 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > OK. That's really the first problem I'd like to solve, since it only > > affects OpenMPI and MPICH2. The other problems can be addressed after > > that. > > > > Would it be enough to fix it in the postinst script, by removing the > > previous alternatives and adding the new ones? > > That should be sufficient, yes. > > > Actually, we could fix the priority at the same time. Setting the > > priority for OpenMPI and MPICH2 to 40 would be OK. > > > > Are you OK with all of this? > > Yes. I'll patch Open MPI tonight. But how about Adam's concerns? I think > it is reasonable to add the Fortran libs to the alternative while we're > at it.
This needs to be coordinated between all the MPI implementations, because you wouldn't be able to have LAM without the fortran lib alternative installed together with openmpi with the fortran lib alternative. So I'm not sure that we want to switch to that *now*. Let's fix the only really broken thing: the mpiexec/mpirun problem in openmpi and mpich2. After that, we can downgrade this bug and discuss the rest of it. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
