Hi Anton, I agree the renaming is confusing. From what I understand, with the release of the MPI 3 standard last November, the MPICH developers decided to have the matching MPI standard version appear in the MPICH version number, but they judged MPICH2-3 would be too confusing, so they renamed it back to MPICH. Things would have been simpler if they had never named the rewrite from a few years ago MPICH2, with version numbers 1.x, but simply MPICH-2.x, but it is too late to change history.
Simply, I believe that if Debian aligns the MPICH package name with the upstream library, things may be confusing to old-timers for a few months, but if it uses a different numbering, the confusion may be initially less, but will last longer. I am not knowledgeable enough in the package naming schemes to suggest anything better (perhaps transitional package names might be useful here, but I am not sure they are intended for this sort of situation, or whether they might not make the situation even more complex). Regards, Yvan Sunday 26 mai 2013 at 23:21 +0200, Anton Gladky wrote: > Hi Yvan, > > 2013/5/26 Yvan Fournier <yvan.fourn...@free.fr>: > [..] > > Finally, using the same naming policy as the MPICH developpers > > themselves (referring to the old MPICH as MPICH1, and renaming MPICH2 to > > MPICH when they upgraded to version 3) seems like a sane thing to do, > > and again, the best way to avoid confusion. > > I mostly agree with you, but I think this proposed renaming schema is > a little confusing. > > Anton -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1369614469.28080.13.camel@stardock