On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 10:52:18AM -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 1 February 2009 at 00:37, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > | Hello Dirk, > | > | On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 09:10:04PM -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > | > | > Open MPI 1.3, released a few days ago, recommends a rebuild of its > | > dependencies. > | > > | > Given the fairly small number of affected packages, we are hoping do drive > | > this rebuild 'informally' rather than with the full force of > libopenmpi-1.2 > | > and libopenmpi-1.3 libraries (which would still require rebuilds, but also > | > delays via NEW etc pp). Details and logs of this initiative are on a new > | > wiki page at http://wiki.debian.org/OpenMPI13Transition > | > | The wiki page states that Open MPI 1.3 is not binary compatible with > | Open MPI 1.2. Presumably, therefore, the SONAME has changed. > > Not quite. It's more complicated because of the fact that at least three > different implementations (LAM/MPI, MPICH and MPICH2, OpenMPI) provide > /usr/lib/libmpi.so and there is no soname encoded.
That's not quite the case; the SONAME for the OpenMPI-supplied library is libmpi.so.0: $ objdump -p /usr/lib/libmpi.so|grep SON SONAME libmpi.so.0 If a program linked against libmpi.so.0 fails to run with the new libmpi.so.0, then either there is a bug in OpenMPI 1.3 or the SONAME should change. This is not confined to relinking dependent libraries in Debian packages: you will also break user-built code. > Also note that it isn't strictly incompatible. Some users of Open MPI that > were built agains 1.2.* continue to work under 1.3. Sure, but the test for re-using an existing SONAME is Is the ABI the same, or not? i.e. Does *every* program continue to run, or not? My understanding is that the answer is "no". > | So I don't understand what this request is about. Can you explain? > > I am kindly requesting those who have a reverse dependency on Open MPI (aka > libopenmpi1) to rebuild their package against the version in unstable. Perhaps I'm being naive, but that doesn't seem to be sufficient. I think you'd have to do that recursively (e.g. for packages like MINC, built against libhdf5-openmpi) and also force all user code to be rebuilt. If the ABI change is intentional, I don't understand why you're not using the usual transition mechanisms for doing this; i.e. either (a) SONAME bump (requires upstream support), or (b) faking it with a package rename (if upstream is unwilling). See  for an example of the latter. Regards, -Steve  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/05/msg01173.html
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkgfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel