Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

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

Subject: Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support
From: Ralph Castain (rhc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-15 19:48:17

Nobody is disagreeing that one could find a way to make CMake work - all we are saying is that (a) CMake has issues too, just like autotools, and (b) we have yet to see a compelling reason to undertake the transition...which would have to be a *very* compelling one.

On May 15, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Fabricio Cannini <fcannini_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Em 15-05-2014 20:15, Maxime Boissonneault escreveu:
>> Le 2014-05-15 18:27, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) a écrit :
>>> 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.
> I have doubt about #3 too, but :
> #1 should not be a problem for the amount of projects already using cmake;
> #2 too, as gromacs [ ] has been using cmake since the 4.6 series, and it has tons of options for compilers, math libraries, cuda, opencl ...
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users_at_[hidden]