Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |  

This web mail archive is frozen.

This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.

You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails have been added to it since July of 2016.

Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.

Subject: Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support
From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-15 18:27:55


On May 15, 2014, at 6:14 PM, Fabricio Cannini <fcannini_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Alright, but now I'm curious as to why you decided against it.
> Could please elaborate on it a bit ?

OMPI has a long, deep history with the GNU Autotools. It's a very long, complicated story, but the high points are:

1. The GNU Autotools community has given us very good support over the years.
2. The GNU Autotools support all compilers that we want to support, including shared library support (others did not, back in 2004 when we started OMPI).
3. The GNU Autotools can fully bootstrap a tarball such that the end user does not need to have the GNU Autotools installed to build an OMPI tarball.

#2 and #3 were the most important reasons back in the beginning of the project.

Periodically, we have looked at other tools over the years because the GNU Autootols are far from perfect, too (scons, cmake, etc.). The other tools either still failed #2 or #3, or were not enough of an improvement to justify the time/effort to re-write OMPI's configure/build system.

To be clear: we'd need a *very* strong reason to move to another toolchain at this point.

-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres_at_[hidden]
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/