Re: Deprecation of LAM/MPI?
On 12/07/2009 06:32 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote: Hi, First of all, I'm not the maintainer of LAM, but since Doug seems to be busy with other things I took the liberty of taking things into my own hands: I really would like everything to confer to the MPI guidelines in Fedora 13, but the problem is that so far no-one has volunteered to rework the LAM/MPI package to conform to the new guidelines [1]. IMHO LAM/MPI could be safely pulled out from Fedora 13, since it was obsoleted by Open MPI 3 years ago. Any thoughts? Does someone care deeply enough about LAM to take ownership and fix the package? [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523998 There has been no public response to this, and Jussi has indicated in the referenced bugzilla that at least one former lam board member is advocating for the package's removal. The current plan is to block lam from rawhide. If someone decides later that they wish to take over ownership of lam, then we can always unblock it. However, this does mean that the few lam using packages out there will need to be rebuilt to remove their lam subpackages and dependency. -- Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com GPG KeyID: CFBFF194 http://people.redhat.com/dledford Infiniband specific RPMs available at http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Deprecation of LAM/MPI?
On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 10:44:14AM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: There has been no public response to this, and Jussi has indicated in the referenced bugzilla that at least one former lam board member is advocating for the package's removal. The current plan is to block lam from rawhide. If someone decides later that they wish to take over ownership of lam, then we can always unblock it. However, this does mean that the few lam using packages out there will need to be rebuilt to remove their lam subpackages and dependency. I doubt lam users are on this list: lam users are certainly users who favor stability over change, and are likely not to be that much interested in fedora, and even less in fedora development. If I still used fedora, I would have liked to have lam kept in fedora, but I don't use fedora anymore. In the end it really depend how much you want to keep/attract users interested in stability versus the cost of maintaining software for those users given that fedora is unlikely to be in their distributions of choice. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Deprecation of LAM/MPI?
Jussi Lehtola wrote: I really would like everything to confer to the MPI guidelines in Fedora 13, but the problem is that so far no-one has volunteered to rework the LAM/MPI package to conform to the new guidelines [1]. IMHO LAM/MPI could be safely pulled out from Fedora 13, since it was obsoleted by Open MPI 3 years ago. I see no reason to continue shipping an obsolete MPI implementation, so yes, LAM should be blocked now. (But it should be done now, not at the very end of the final freeze, so there's time to fix packages to drop their -lam subpackages, and create -openmpi ones where they aren't already there. The timing for F12 was really poor, which was why it got unblocked there.) Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
