[pkg-boost-devel] MPI issue on sparc ? Boost::mpi looks for OpenMPI but it should be LAM no ?

[Christophe Prud'homme]

Hi Adam,

thanks for your answer !

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct at debian.org>wrote:

> If mpi-default-dev points to lam, then why is OpenMPI installed in the
> system?  Just use mpi-default-dev and libhdf5-mpi-dev and they should be
> consistent.  If they're not, then HDF5 needs a bin NMU.
>
I am not depending on hdf5, it gets installed due to another build-depends
(I am not sure which one)
I of course use mpi-default-dev which points to lam
unfortunately openmpi gets installed too and has higher priority than lam
and all the defaults point to openm pi
mpic++, incluce, libs...



>
> Likewise with boost, that should be built using mpi-default-dev, right?
>
boost is also build-depending on mpi-default-dev

I believe neither  life or boost are at fault but rather mpi-default* which
has an inconsistent behavior on sparc


> Are you suggesting that mpi-default-dev should conflict with every
> non-default mpi-dev package on a given architecture, to make certain
> that nobody has it installed when building such packages?
>
no
I suggest that if lam is the default implementation then it should be  the
default
if openmpi is installed it becomes the default
log on smetana.debian.org and do ' dchroot unstable'  and check for
yourself.


> [Separate issue: if there's openmpi on Sparc, why is it not the
> mpi-default?]
>
good question.

 I fixed the problem by enforcing lam
I set the MPI_COMPILER to mpic++.lam explicitely rather than mpic++ which
points to the openmpi one

also there is a mpicxx for openmpi but none for lam . So the alternatives
are not consistent
should I fill a bug on mpi-default* ?

Best regards
C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-boost-devel/attachments/20100611/3367d76e/attachment.htm>