On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 00:51 -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > I think that it is the case indeed.... since the migration is > unavoidable and versioning the dependency on mpi-defaults is not > appropriate for this case, why not simply upload mpi-defaults 1.0 > directly to unstable?
I guess Manuel's idea was to test first (under experimental) that packages would build fine under mpi-defaults[mpich2]. Certainly my intention with gerris was just to check the build result. With the result being somewhat odd and unexpected, but not because of mpich2. I think there were questions regarding some other packages, in relation to whether they'd build fine under mpich2 instead of lam, see http://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2011/05/msg00025.html http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=old-mpi-eol;[email protected] http://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2010/03/msg00021.html Drew > > On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > > > Drew Parsons <[email protected]> writes: > > > > 1) why is the experimental buildd not using the latest experimental > > > package? > > > Typically because the build dependencies weren't strict enough to force > > it to, as experimental autobuilders otherwise favor versions from > > unstable. I haven't checked whether that applies to this particular > > case, though. > -- > .-. > =------------------------------ /v\ ----------------------------= > Keep in touch // \\ (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com > Yaroslav Halchenko /( )\ ICQ#: 60653192 > Linux User ^^-^^ [175555] > > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1308549634.16410.10.camel@pug
