Packaging question on MPI requires

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek at in.waw.pl
Fri Oct 23 12:46:50 UTC 2015


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:48:09AM +0100, Dave Love wrote:
> At least I'd have
> thought there needs to be some sort of hook for extensibility.

This is be good idea. If it would be enough to add directories
to the scan list in the dependency generator script.

> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek at in.waw.pl> writes:
> 
> >> What are you supposed to do with MPI packaging for another language such
> >> as R?  By the sound of it
> >> <https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/loveshack/livhpc/package/R-pbdMPI/>
> >> and friends will fail now.
> > As a short-term solution, it is always possible to skip automatic
> > generation of Requires, and add whatever is necessary by hand.
> > In the long run, packaging should be changed to be similar to Python:
> > 1. an MPI-implementation specific directory should be used for R modules
> > 2. the dependency generator should be taught to scan this directory
> 
> Surely this isn't scalable.  What would happen with a common API for N
> different Scheme implementations, for instance?  I'm also interested in
> Haskell; others might want the bindings to Common Lisp, ruby, Tcl...
> Currently CLASSPATH isn't set for the Java bindings.  
If by "scalable" you mean that the rpm-mpi-hooks package cannot scale,
I disagree. There's maybe a dozen script languages that might care
about MPI, I'm sure that the rules can be added. Nevertheless,
extensibility hook sounds useful.

> This is the sort of reason I think the rules for MPI packaging are
> unfortunate.
I see that this causes additional problem for you, but in the previous
situation automatic requirements were completely broken, and now they
seem to work fine (for the supported languages). For a user of software
packaged natively for Fedora this is a definite win.

Zbyszek


More information about the devel mailing list