Summary: | virtual/mpi - for what it exists? | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | marek wojciechowski <wojciechowski_m> |
Component: | [OLD] Library | Assignee: | Gentoo Cluster Team <cluster> |
Status: | RESOLVED CANTFIX | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
marek wojciechowski
2010-03-14 12:50:00 UTC
*** Bug 309367 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Not sure. Assigning to maintainers RDEPEND="|| ( sys-cluster/openmpi[cxx?,fortran?,romio?] sys-cluster/mpich2[cxx?,fortran?,romio?] sys-cluster/lam-mpi[fortran?,romio?] )" (In reply to comment #0) > I observed today that many packages which can use MPI demand directly openpmi > library instead of virtual/mpi (e.g. vtk, boost). So the question arises what > is the reason for virtual/mpi if only one library for message passing have to > be installed anyway. Actually this situation prevents us from using for example > mpich2, because different MPI implementations block each other. > > Is this possible to demand in ebuilds for boost, vtk, etc. just virtual/mpi? If > not let's remove it from potage just to not pretend we have a choice for MPI > library. > It depends on both upstream and the maintainer. Testing against multiple mpi implementations is a hassle that both tend to skip. Also, lam-mpi is no longer actively developed and doesn't support some of the newer MPI extensions. If you are willing to help testing a package with other implementations and then filing a bug with your results would be helpful. This, of course, does require you to fix the deps in a local overlay first. Closing as the original question appears to have been answered. |