Packaging question on MPI requires

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek at
Tue Oct 27 00:56:12 UTC 2015

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:34:17PM +0000, Dave Love wrote:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek at> writes:
> >> 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.
> "Scalable" is probably the wrong word, but I assume there will be policy
> virtual paperwork, and it means you have to persuade MPI maintainers to
> support it before you do anything new, or you need to fork the MPI
> packages.

I think this thread is getting too speculative: after all, we're
talking mostly about agreeing on a few directories.
Is there something broken that we should fix?


More information about the devel mailing list