On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 08:05:28AM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Manuel, you mentioned getting OpenMPI to work on all arches as your top
priority; what's your expected timeframe? I know, when it's ready or
real soon now. But if this will happen in plenty of time for packages
to transition
Am Mittwoch, den 19.11.2008, 04:32 -0600 schrieb Steve M. Robbins:
If I may, I'd like to suggest mpi-defaults go ahead despite
good intentions that OpenMPI be ready before squeeze.
That way, maintainers of MPI-using packages (e.g. me) don't have to
deal with the mess from today until the
[ Sorry for the long email! I wanted to express my view and as a
non-native speaker, it's not always easy to be precise. Hope you don't
mind. ]
Am Dienstag, den 18.11.2008, 08:05 -0500 schrieb Adam C Powell IV:
On Sat, 2008-11-15 at 21:04 -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 14 November 2008 at
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 23:06 +0100, Manuel Prinz wrote:
[ Sorry for the long email! I wanted to express my view and as a
non-native speaker, it's not always easy to be precise. Hope you don't
mind. ]
No problem at all!
Am Dienstag, den 18.11.2008, 08:05 -0500 schrieb Adam C Powell IV:
On
On 18 November 2008 at 23:03, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
| All things considered, OpenMPI has my vote as the most advanced
| implementation right now...
Thanks for that. Given that we need to order these (presented alphabetically)
LAM ? MPICH ? Open MPI
I suggest the following:
i) LAM
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 22:25 -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 18 November 2008 at 23:03, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
| All things considered, OpenMPI has my vote as the most advanced
| implementation right now...
Thanks for that. Given that we need to order these (presented alphabetically)
On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 23:12 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Howdy,
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 07:48:19PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
[Copying -beowulf as there's likely some interest there as well.]
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 15:21 +0100, Manuel Prinz wrote:
When building against
On 14 November 2008 at 23:12, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
| Howdy,
|
|
| On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 07:48:19PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
| [Copying -beowulf as there's likely some interest there as well.]
|
| On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 15:21 +0100, Manuel Prinz wrote:
|
| When building against
Howdy,
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 07:48:19PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
[Copying -beowulf as there's likely some interest there as well.]
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 15:21 +0100, Manuel Prinz wrote:
When building against OpenMPI, there are a few choices:
1. Do not build packages using
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 15:21 +0100, Manuel Prinz wrote:
ACK to that. The problem will probably not go away anytime soon. A new
standard seems to be on the way, and I really hope things improve with
it.
Am Donnerstag, den 30.10.2008, 19:48 -0400 schrieb Adam C Powell IV:
Wow, that would be
Hi,
I need some advice on building packages with different libs. I already sent
this to debian-mentors but unfortunately got no answer. As this is about a
scientific package, maybe there has been somebody with the same problem.
Assuming that I have software S which needs to be linked against
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
To make this a bit more realistic: It is about package meep-mpi.
Currently it uses libhdf5-serial and there is a requet to build it
with libhdf5-mpich and libhdf5-openmpi. So my Build-Depends: in the
source section needs to contain either
12 matches
Mail list logo
