Deprecation of LAM/MPI?

[Susi Lehtola]

Hi,



First of all, I'm not the maintainer of LAM, but since Doug seems to be
busy with other things I took the liberty of taking things into my own
hands:

I really would like everything to confer to the MPI guidelines in Fedora
13, but the problem is that so far no-one has volunteered to rework the
LAM/MPI package to conform to the new guidelines [1]. IMHO LAM/MPI could
be safely pulled out from Fedora 13, since it was obsoleted by Open MPI
3 years ago.

Any thoughts? Does someone care deeply enough about LAM to take
ownership and fix the package?

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523998

-- 
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org

[Doug Ledford]

On 12/07/2009 06:32 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
>  Hi,
>  
>  
>  
>  First of all, I'm not the maintainer of LAM, but since Doug seems to be
>  busy with other things I took the liberty of taking things into my own
>  hands:
>  
>  I really would like everything to confer to the MPI guidelines in Fedora
>  13, but the problem is that so far no-one has volunteered to rework the
>  LAM/MPI package to conform to the new guidelines [1]. IMHO LAM/MPI could
>  be safely pulled out from Fedora 13, since it was obsoleted by Open MPI
>  3 years ago.
>  
>  Any thoughts? Does someone care deeply enough about LAM to take
>  ownership and fix the package?
>  
>  [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523998
>   
There has been no public response to this, and Jussi has indicated in
the referenced bugzilla that at least one former lam board member is
advocating for the package's removal.  The current plan is to block lam
from rawhide.  If someone decides later that they wish to take over
ownership of lam, then we can always unblock it.  However, this does
mean that the few lam using packages out there will need to be rebuilt
to remove their lam subpackages and dependency.

-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford(a)redhat.com&gt;
              GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
	      http://people.redhat.com/dledford

Infiniband specific RPMs available at
	      http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband

[Patrice Dumas]

On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 10:44:14AM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
>  
>  There has been no public response to this, and Jussi has indicated in
>  the referenced bugzilla that at least one former lam board member is
>  advocating for the package's removal.  The current plan is to block lam
>  from rawhide.  If someone decides later that they wish to take over
>  ownership of lam, then we can always unblock it.  However, this does
>  mean that the few lam using packages out there will need to be rebuilt
>  to remove their lam subpackages and dependency. 
I doubt lam users are on this list: lam users are certainly users who 
favor stability over change, and are likely not to be that much interested
in fedora, and even less in fedora development. 

If I still used fedora, I would have liked to have lam kept in fedora, but 
I don't use fedora anymore. In the end it really depend how much you want
to keep/attract users interested in stability versus the cost of maintaining
software for those users given that fedora is unlikely to be in their 
distributions of choice.

--
Pat

[Kevin Kofler]

Jussi Lehtola wrote:
>  I really would like everything to confer to the MPI guidelines in
> Fedora
>  13, but the problem is that so far no-one has volunteered to rework the
>  LAM/MPI package to conform to the new guidelines [1]. IMHO LAM/MPI could
>  be safely pulled out from Fedora 13, since it was obsoleted by Open MPI
>  3 years ago. 
I see no reason to continue shipping an obsolete MPI implementation, so yes, 
LAM should be blocked now. (But it should be done now, not at the very end 
of the final freeze, so there's time to fix packages to drop their -lam 
subpackages, and create -openmpi ones where they aren't already there. The 
timing for F12 was really poor, which was why it got unblocked there.)

        Kevin Kofler