Gee, I should stop posting past a certain hour of the day… ;) On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 18:08 -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > The .so alternatives symlinks only require that the libraries be > API-compatible, which they are (or if not, it's a bug, since they're > supposed to follow the MPI standard). That's why these links, and > plain .so links in general, are in the -dev packages, not the shlib > packages. It should be possible to compile any MPI program's source > code against any implementation by linking -lmpi -lmpi++ etc. > > Then the resulting binary, shlib etc. includes the soname specific to > the library it linked with, e.g. libopen-rte.so.0 . So if it's in a > Debian package, the resulting binary depends on the ABI-correct library > package, e.g. libopenmpi1 .
You're of course right. I somehow mixed several things up and got quite confused. Open MPI indeed does use libmpi.so.0 for the name, all other implementations don't. I probably mixed libmpi.so and libmpi.so.0 here, among other things. (Though this is not really an issue, it might be nice to build it as libopenmpi.so.0 or something.) > If this still doesn't make sense, the libtool online documentation is > pretty clear. Now, awake and conscious, it makes perfect sense. The libtool doc is a good read, nevertheless. Sorry for the noise! You're "nitpicking", as you called it, was very welcome! :) Best regards Manuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org