Am Dienstag, den 18.12.2007, 21:23 -0600 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
On 19 December 2007 at 01:29, Manuel Prinz wrote:
| I'm not sure about that. I didn't see that on a quick read of chapters 8
| and 10, though policy states in 10.2:
| Packages that use libtool to create shared
On 19 December 2007 at 13:08, Manuel Prinz wrote:
| Am Dienstag, den 18.12.2007, 21:23 -0600 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
| On 19 December 2007 at 01:29, Manuel Prinz wrote:
| | I'm not sure about that. I didn't see that on a quick read of chapters 8
| | and 10, though policy states in 10.2:
|
Hi,
The patch looks good, it should fix all of the breakage. Just a couple
of little points of clarification below.
On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 06:58 -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 19 December 2007 at 13:08, Manuel Prinz wrote:
| Am Dienstag, den 18.12.2007, 21:23 -0600 schrieb Dirk
Am Mittwoch, den 19.12.2007, 06:58 -0600 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
On 19 December 2007 at 13:08, Manuel Prinz wrote:
| if we want to handle it via alternatives (which LAM doesn't) we have
| check the situation in pgapack, so we don't get a problem there. What is
| the advantage to have mpi.h
Hi Adam!
Thanks for your explanations. I have one question still:
Am Mittwoch, den 19.12.2007, 08:40 -0500 schrieb Adam C Powell IV:
I think the confusion is: the .la files are not the static libs, they
are libtool metadata files. The -dev package needs to include the .a
static libs. The
Le jeudi 20 décembre 2007 à 00:42 +0100, Manuel Prinz a écrit :
Am Mittwoch, den 19.12.2007, 08:40 -0500 schrieb Adam C Powell IV:
I think the confusion is: the .la files are not the static libs,
they
are libtool metadata files. The -dev package needs to include
the .a
static libs.
Hello,
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 02:00 +0100, Manuel Prinz wrote:
Hi guys!
Am Montag, den 17.12.2007, 17:53 -0500 schrieb Adam C Powell IV:
That already happens via alternatives slaves. As discussed earlier,
it's inappropriate with ABI-incompatible soname-named files e.g. *.so.0
I think
Hello Adam!
Am Dienstag, den 18.12.2007, 08:50 -0500 schrieb Adam C Powell IV:
A couple of notes:
* The lib*.so.0.0.0 and lib*.so.0 files *must* be in libopenmpi1,
that's the shared lib package which other packages will link to
at runtime. So please move those files and
Hi everyone!
Am Dienstag, den 18.12.2007, 15:31 +0100 schrieb Manuel Prinz:
I already noticed my mistake and am working with a modified version.
Here's my new and modified patch for openmpi. It looks right to me and
first checks show that it's working. I'll have a larger test tomorrow
and will
Am Dienstag, den 18.12.2007, 18:12 -0600 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
IIRC we have no choice as Policy mandates static builds. May be a
'recommends' though.
I'm not sure about that. I didn't see that on a quick read of chapters 8
and 10, though policy states in 10.2:
Packages that use
On 19 December 2007 at 00:43, Manuel Prinz wrote:
| Hi everyone!
|
| Am Dienstag, den 18.12.2007, 15:31 +0100 schrieb Manuel Prinz:
| I already noticed my mistake and am working with a modified version.
|
| Here's my new and modified patch for openmpi. It looks right to me and
| first checks
On 19 December 2007 at 01:29, Manuel Prinz wrote:
| Am Dienstag, den 18.12.2007, 18:12 -0600 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
| IIRC we have no choice as Policy mandates static builds. May be a
| 'recommends' though.
|
| I'm not sure about that. I didn't see that on a quick read of chapters 8
| and
On 18 December 2007 at 21:23, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| 5) Some Lintian warnings remain (but I now added two more silencers, so the
| last two should go) -- could you try and see why your man page patch
| doesn't cover'em ?
|
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/debian/SVN/build-area lintian
On 17 December 2007 at 18:45, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
| Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
|
| reassign 456721 libopenmpi1
| Bug#456721: libpetsc.so depends on unexistent libraries
| Bug reassigned from package `libpetsc2.3.3' to `libopenmpi1'.
|
| severity 456721 grave
|
Am Montag, den 17.12.2007, 13:36 -0600 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
Indeed, what were we thinking here Manuel? [...] In light of this, can
you remind me why you put the libs into /usr/lib/openmpi ? I
understand why we put the _internal_ library files like [files
snipped] there, but for the
On 17 December 2007 at 21:13, Manuel Prinz wrote:
| Am Montag, den 17.12.2007, 13:36 -0600 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
| Indeed, what were we thinking here Manuel? [...] In light of this, can
| you remind me why you put the libs into /usr/lib/openmpi ? I
| understand why we put the _internal_
Am Montag, den 17.12.2007, 14:47 -0600 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
On 17 December 2007 at 21:13, Manuel Prinz wrote:
| Am Montag, den 17.12.2007, 13:36 -0600 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
| The reasoning behind that was to fix the breaking of other MPI
| implementations by moving stuff to
On 17 December 2007 at 22:27, Manuel Prinz wrote:
| Am Montag, den 17.12.2007, 14:47 -0600 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
| On 17 December 2007 at 21:13, Manuel Prinz wrote:
| No, as there are more libraries needed for the compiler wrappers, if I'm
| not mistaken.
| I'm at work too so I didn't have
Hi Dirk!
Am Montag, den 17.12.2007, 16:24 -0600 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
Are you sure we need alternatives for something like libmpi_cxx.so.0 which
the 'other' (ie LAM) doesn't have?
No. What I currently try to figure out is where the intersection is and
create links all unique libs and
On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 16:24 -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 17 December 2007 at 22:27, Manuel Prinz wrote:
| Am Montag, den 17.12.2007, 14:47 -0600 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
| On 17 December 2007 at 21:13, Manuel Prinz wrote:
| No, as there are more libraries needed for the compiler
Am Montag, den 17.12.2007, 17:53 -0500 schrieb Adam C Powell IV:
That already happens via alternatives slaves. As discussed earlier,
it's inappropriate with ABI-incompatible soname-named files e.g. *.so.0
I think we're going in the right direction: alternatives for *.so and
different
Hi guys!
Am Montag, den 17.12.2007, 17:53 -0500 schrieb Adam C Powell IV:
That already happens via alternatives slaves. As discussed earlier,
it's inappropriate with ABI-incompatible soname-named files e.g. *.so.0
I think we're going in the right direction: alternatives for *.so and
22 matches
Mail list logo
