Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] Use of OPAL_PREFIX to relocate a lib
From: Barrett, Brian W (bwbarre_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-27 15:11:02


I found the issue - somehow, we let the priorities used in installdirs get lost when we rewrote part of the configure system a couple months ago. I have a fix, but it involves changing the configure system, so I won't commit it until this evening.

Thanks for pointing out the bug!

Brian

On Oct 26, 2010, at 8:36 AM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:

> I'll take a look at fixing this the right way today.
>
> Since I wrote both the original autogen.sh that guaranteed static-components was ordered and PREFIX code, I had considered it to be a documented feature that there was strong otdering in the static-components list. So personally, I'd consider it a bug in autogen.pl, but I think we can work around it.
>
> Brian
>
> On Oct 26, 2010, at 6:01 AM, Sylvain Jeaugey wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think this is the right way to fix it. Sorry! :-(
>> I don't think it is the right way to do it either :-)
>>
>>> I say this because it worked somewhat by luck before, and now it's
>>> broken. If we put in another "it'll work because of a side effect of an
>>> unintentional characteristic of the build system" hack, it'll just
>>> likely break again someday if/when we change the build system.
>> I completely agree.
>>
>>> I'd prefer a more robust solution that won't break as a side-effect of
>>> the build system.
>> I'd prefer too, but it would require adding much more logic in the
>> framework, including component sort with priority. And since no-one except
>> me seems to care about this functionality, I'm fine with this patch.
>>
>> More generally, I understand your demand for high quality patches that do
>> things The Right Way. However, I feel it's sometimes exagerated,
>> especially when talking about parts of the code that don't meet these high
>> quality standards.
>>
>> In the end, my feeling is that we don't replace very bad (broken) code
>> with bad (working) code because we want to wait for a perfect (never
>> happening) code. I don't think it's beneficial to the project.
>>
>> Sylvain
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> devel_at_[hidden]
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>
>
> --
> Brian W. Barrett
> Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software
> Sandia National Laboratories
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>

-- 
  Brian W. Barrett
  Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software
  Sandia National Laboratories