Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Open MPI User's mailing list

From: Ben Allan (baallan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-17 12:29:17

Having been a vict^H^H^H^Hproducer of rpms for hpc apps,
and from what i've seen of your installed files (which isn't an
extremely large set) I vote as follows:

1) all-in-one. given the current state of HPC, nearly all "users"
are also developers.

2) I'm in favor of source rpms, most particularly if you
include in the source tarball (not just hidden inside the SRPM)
the spec files. The more examples of the proper invocation
of configure on specific architectures and network layers,
the happier I'm going to be. One could argue the proper
place for collecting such examples is a wiki, but in the source
is good too.

Binary rpms should be the responsibility of the distribution
makers (redhat, whoever else) not developers.


On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 09:01:41PM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> I have some random user questions about RPMs, though:
> 1. Would you prefer an all-in-one Open MPI RPM, or would you prefer
> multiple RPMs (e.g., openmpi-doc, openmpi-devel, openmpi-runtime,
> ...etc.)?
> 2. We're definitely going to provide an SRPM suitable for "rpmbuild
> --rebuild". However, we're not 100% sure that it's worthwhile to
> provide binary RPMs because everyone's cluster/development systems seem
> to be "one off" from standard Linux distros. Do you want a binary
> RPM(s)? If so, for which distros? (this is one area where vendors
> tend to have dramatically different views than academics/researchers)