On Mar 26, 2008, at 10:05 AM, Ashley Pittman wrote:
The community Open MPI projects distributes SRPMs which, when built,
do not install into /opt by default -- you have to request it
specifically.
Out of interest how does open-mpi handle the mpir_dll_name symbol in
the
library, it's suppos
On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 20:56 -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> > Except that you should never do that. First off, RPMs should never
> > install in /opt by default.
>
> The community Open MPI projects distributes SRPMs which, when built,
> do not install into /opt by default -- you have to request it
On Mar 19, 2008, at 1:48 PM, Michael Jennings wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 March 2008, at 18:18:36 (-0700),
Christopher Irving wrote:
Well you're half correct. You're thinking that _prefix is always
defined as /usr.
No, actually I'm not. :)
But in the case were install_in_opt is defined they have
Sorry for the delay in replying; I got caught up in other things...
On Mar 18, 2008, at 3:15 PM, Christopher Irving wrote:
Okay, I'm no longer sure to which spec file you're referring.
I was referring to the one on the SVN trunk:
https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/browser/trunk/contrib/dist/l
On Tuesday, 18 March 2008, at 18:18:36 (-0700),
Christopher Irving wrote:
> Well you're half correct. You're thinking that _prefix is always
> defined as /usr.
No, actually I'm not. :)
> But in the case were install_in_opt is defined they have redefined
> _prefix to be /opt/%{name}/%{version} i
On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 12:28 -0700, Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 March 2008, at 12:15:34 (-0700),
> Christopher Irving wrote:
>
> > Now, if you removed line 651 and 653 from the new spec file it works
> > for both cases. You wont get the files listed twice error because
> > although y
On Tuesday, 18 March 2008, at 12:15:34 (-0700),
Christopher Irving wrote:
> Now, if you removed line 651 and 653 from the new spec file it works
> for both cases. You wont get the files listed twice error because
> although you have the statement %dir %{_prefix} on line 649 you
> never have a lin
On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 08:32 -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2008, at 2:34 PM, Christopher Irving wrote:
>
> > Well that fixed the errors for the case prefix=/usr but after
> > looking at
> > the spec file I suspected it would cause a problem if you used the
> > install_in_opt option. So
On Mar 17, 2008, at 2:34 PM, Christopher Irving wrote:
Well that fixed the errors for the case prefix=/usr but after
looking at
the spec file I suspected it would cause a problem if you used the
install_in_opt option. So I tried it and got the following errors:
RPM build errors:
Instal
Well that fixed the errors for the case prefix=/usr but after looking at
the spec file I suspected it would cause a problem if you used the
install_in_opt option. So I tried it and got the following errors:
RPM build errors:
Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/opt/openmpi/1.2.5/
Could you try this version of the specfile (there's a download link at
the bottom):
https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/browser/trunk/contrib/dist/linux/openmpi.spec
This is the specfile on the OMPI trunk, which hasn't made it over to
the v1.2 branch yet. Here's the diff between the two (
I ran into the following problem when trying to build multiple rpms from
the SRPM for 1.2.5. Everything compiled fine and building a single rpm
had no errors. However, trying to build multiple packages errored out
with:
openmpi-1.2.5-1-root
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/u
12 matches
Mail list logo
