Am Montag, den 17.12.2007, 16:16 -0500 schrieb Adam C Powell IV: > As the maintainer of mpich, I do not see any conflicts here. > libmpich1.0ldbl has: libmpich.so.1.0, libfmpich.so.1.0, > libpmpich.so.1.0, libpmpich++.so.1.0, libtvmpich.so.1.0, and > libmpe.so.1.0 . There's no ABI compatibility between any of the MPI > implementations, so the sonames should be different, and then there will > be no conflict in /usr/lib right? If we want to take advantage of API > compatibility, then the -dev package .so files should be alternatives > symlinks, which they are. But not the soname-named symlinks. These > should only overlap if there is ABI compatibility, as with the various > BLAS and LAPACK implementations.
Right. I'm working on that. It was supposed to work exactly like that and should not be too hard to fix. > If LAM and OpenMPI conflict, then IMO LAM should defer to OpenMPI for > the reasons found in http://www.open-mpi.org/faq/?category=general#why : > the LAM project has merged with OpenMPI and its maintainers have joined > the OpenMPI team! Indeed. Best regards Manuel
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil