Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-16 14:15:15


Per discussion on the teleconf today, since the only OMPI member who
cares has a workaround in their packaging of Open MPI for library
versioning (Sun / ClusterTools), we have dropped this issue. When/if
someone cares about it enough in the future, they can re-open the
issue. I have filed a ticket to capture the idea for posterity:

     https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/ticket/1167

This RFC is now considered closed.

On Oct 15, 2007, at 3:00 PM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:

> Christian Bell wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Brian Barrett wrote:
>>
>>> Nooooo! :)
>>>
>>> It would be good for everyone to read the Libtool documentation to
>>> see why versioning on the release number would be a really bad idea.
>>> Then comment. But my opinion would be that you should change based
>>> on interface changes, not based on release numbers.
>>
>> Yes, I second Brian. Notwithstanding what the popular vote is on MPI
>> ABI compatibility across MPI implementations, I think that
>> major/minor numbering within an implementation should be used to
>> indiciate when interfaces break, not give hints as to what release
>> they pertain to.
>>
>> . . christian
>>
>
> I agree w/ Brian and Christian... version the file according to
> *interface* chages, not releases. This is, as Brian mentions, all
> explained very well in the libtool docs.
>
> -Paul
>
> --
> Paul H. Hargrove PHHargrove_at_[hidden]
> Future Technologies Group
> HPC Research Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel

-- 
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems