Greetings! Sorry for the delay -- have been away from my mail for some time.
I think this is a good idea in general, but am wondering: 1) is it mpich specific? wouldn't mpe-source be better? 2) So the only "binary" of the package is the tar.bz2? If so, then that's great. If instead you are referring to a package 'whose source package' containst the mpe source, then from my experience packaging atlas, the build-daemon maintainers won't like this They often don't even have apt setup on the daemons. So I'm having to duplicate the lapack source into atlas, for example. Would love to see some policy on this, as it appears wasteful, but it could be that we would both need to duplicate the source if packaged in this manner. 3) Have you used mpe? Is it useful? Take care, Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > I am thinking of making > "mpich-mpe-source" package, which contains a .tar.bz2 of > MPE source-tree, so that LAM can extract it at build-time, > to create MPE for LAM. > > Any thoughts? > > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer > > > > > -- Camm Maguire [EMAIL PROTECTED] ========================================================================== "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
