Orion Poplawski writes:
> Just a quick note - this discussion belongs on the EPEL mailing list.
Apologies. I don't remember seeing that when I read the instructions to
try to get packages into EPEL. I'll check whether it's there/obvious
when I have a chance.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.
Doug Ledford writes:
> There was a changeover in maintainership for this package internally, so
> I'm coming into this issue cold.
Thanks for responding. (I assume that means the Red Hat openmpi
package.) I wasn't expecting to get it sorted out in RHEL, and wanted
to avoid what looks like bein
On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 11:14 -0400, Peter Martuccelli wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 14:27 +, Dave Love wrote:
> > The undocumented openmpi and mpich updates in RHEL6.6 have broken binary
> > compatibility and seem to be provoking general rebuilds of things in
> > EPEL. While that may be OK for
On 10/30/2014 08:27 AM, Dave Love wrote:
> The undocumented openmpi and mpich updates in RHEL6.6 have broken binary
> compatibility and seem to be provoking general rebuilds of things in
> EPEL.
Just a quick note - this discussion belongs on the EPEL mailing list.
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical
On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 14:27 +, Dave Love wrote:
> The undocumented openmpi and mpich updates in RHEL6.6 have broken binary
> compatibility and seem to be provoking general rebuilds of things in
> EPEL. While that may be OK for things that are packaged in EPEL, it at
> best doesn't help with ou
The undocumented openmpi and mpich updates in RHEL6.6 have broken binary
compatibility and seem to be provoking general rebuilds of things in
EPEL. While that may be OK for things that are packaged in EPEL, it at
best doesn't help with our HPC users' locally-built programs or
local/copr-published
