On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 20:10 +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 05:11:40AM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > Greetings,
> > 
> > Because MPICH1 and LAM are long since end-of-life, this is taking on a
> > new urgency.  The Debian Science team is planning to deprecate the LAM
> > and MPICH1 packages for squeeze, and remove them entirely for squeeze+1.
> > [1]  For this reason, a package built against mpi-defaults should be the
> > only MPI version of most packages for squeeze and moving forward.
> > 
> >  [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2009/11/msg00010.html
> > 
> > I would be happy to provide a patch to make this happen, as I did to
> > create the openmpi version.  If you prefer to have the current three
> > plus an mpi-defaults version, I would be happy to make that happen as
> > well, just let me know either way.
> > 
> I have not a strong opinion about the opportunity of supporting just
> one MPI flavor or all available ones. In current stable all flavors are
> supported and I suppose users would be not so happy to see them
> disappearing in squeeze. For sure, current multi-flavor building would
> require a decent common infrastructure, instead of different hacks
> spreaded around all interested packages. If you MPI maintainers are
> not going to support multi-flavors I would prefer to drop that
> in squeeze+1.
> That said, a patch for add mpi-defaults to current support 
> is of course welcome.

Okay, I will put some time into this approach (adding mpi-defaults,
leaving the three in place) when I get some time, probably next week.

GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Engineering consulting with open source tools

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Pkg-grass-devel mailing list

Reply via email to