On 18 October 2008 at 03:30, Terry Frankcombe wrote:
| <snip>
| > Well when I use Open MPI I go with the new convention and call orterun
| > instead of mpirun. I think you should have. Maybe a local alias in your
| > ~/.bashrc can do the trick.
| >
| > Current packages do have mpirun.openmpi but we were unable to devise a
| > bullet-proof scheme between lam, mpich and Open MPI for sharing / updating /
| > ... the alternatives links as there are sublte differences that prevent us
| > from switching all these aliases consistently.
|
| Eh? Surely it's a simple case of conflict? If you want multiple
It is not simple or else we'd do it. Trust us, several folks tried.
IIRC one of the issues was that among mpich, lam and Open MPI, the set of
supplied and potential conflicting apps (and their manual pages etc) is not
perfectly overlapping.
| packages providing similar functionality, it's up to you to specify how
| the user should chose which one they want to run. Breaking any
| particular package (or all packages) seems like a particularly poor
| choice, but that's only my opinion.
|
| I would argue that orterun is a very long way from a "new convention".
| I'd draw attention to section 8.8 of the MPI 2.1 standard.
|
| But again, this is a discussion for the Debian list.
In particularly for the 'package Open MPI maintainers' list at
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-openmpi-maintainers
so if you want to continue this discussion, please take there.
We can also point you to a couple of discussion in the Debian bug tracking
system, for example
http://bugs.debian.org/452047
where Manuel actually goes through the motions. If you think you have fixes
for this 'simple case of conflict', as you call, do not hold back and tell
us, but please over on that list.
Thank you, Dirk
--
Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.
