On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 18:10 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > There is not much progress so far with respect to changing mpi-defaults > > > to use MPICH2 instead of LAM on the architectures where Open MPI is not > > > available yet. This needs a round of binNMUs. Marc Brockschmidt said he > > > will look at the request to debian-release in the next few days, so this > > > might resolve soon as well. > > > > Something to consider: this will break a lot of packages which use > > FORTRAN until 563705 is fixed, and then that will require mods to > > packages. > > I understand that bug as: > if mpich2 or openmpi don't do the right thing when calling > mpif77/mpif90, then symlinks are needed. > > Is there a proof that either of them doesn't do the right thing? > Wouldn't it be more appropriate to fix them to do the right thing? > > (Those are honest questions -- I don't know anything about fortran)
As discussed before (including in the bug), when there are mixed FORTRAN and C++ symbols, it's not clear whether to use mpif77/90 or mpic++. Also, it's a big convenience: a lot of packages make multiple executables and/or libraries, some of which use MPI and some don't. Pointing them to -lmpi -lmpi++ -lmpif77 for the MPI execs/lib directories seems easier than telling them to use mpicc and friends for some targets and gcc for others. And we have libmpi.so and libmpi++.so symlinks, why not libmpif77.so? :) -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part