On 15/06/09 at 18:32 -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Hello Pavan,
Thank you for the inquiry. I've somewhat left MPICH for now (focusing
on OpenMPI, which I don't maintain but use), and assigned its
maintenance to the Debian Scientific Computing team. But I think there
are others very
On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 19:00 -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Hi,
Last week OpenMPI transitioned to a new shared library package,
reflecting an ABI change to version 1.3.x (which wasn't reflected in the
shared lib package name of 1.3-2).
From what I can see, it looks like there are at least
On 16 June 2009 at 10:06, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
| On 15/06/09 at 18:32 -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
| Hello Pavan,
|
| Thank you for the inquiry. I've somewhat left MPICH for now (focusing
| on OpenMPI, which I don't maintain but use), and assigned its
| maintenance to the Debian
On 16/06/09 at 09:24 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 16 June 2009 at 10:06, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
| On 15/06/09 at 18:32 -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
| Hello Pavan,
|
| Thank you for the inquiry. I've somewhat left MPICH for now (focusing
| on OpenMPI, which I don't maintain but
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:06:34 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
This raises an interesting question: if we package mpich2, couldn't we
drop mpich(1) and LAM from Debian? Are there cases where it's more
interesting to use mpich v1 or LAM than mpich2 or OpenMPI?
yes, there are many scientific tools
Adam C Powell IV wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 19:00 -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Hi,
Last week OpenMPI transitioned to a new shared library package,
reflecting an ABI change to version 1.3.x (which wasn't reflected in the
shared lib package name of 1.3-2).
From what I can see, it looks
On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 20:10 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Adam C Powell IV wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 19:00 -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Hi,
Last week OpenMPI transitioned to a new shared library package,
reflecting an ABI change to version 1.3.x (which wasn't reflected in the
shared
7 matches
Mail list logo
