[Bug 171993] Review Request: mpich2 - An implementation of MPI

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Apr 16 02:10:14 UTC 2008

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: mpich2 -  An implementation of MPI


------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com  2008-04-15 22:10 EST -------
(In reply to comment #62)
> Need to change:
> < %{_datadir}/%{name}/*log*
> ---
> > %{_datadir}/%{name}/*.*log*
> to avoid having example_logging going into the base mpich2 package.
Fixed, thanks.
> mpich2-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
> /usr/share/mpich2/bin32/mpif90/usr/bin/mp32-mpif90
> (and same for mpif77, mpicc, mpicxx).
I've fought with this in the past, I can't find a means of dealing with it
sanely, suggestions welcomed. I believe it can be ignored.

> Lots of:
> mpich2-libs.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
> /etc/mpich2-32/mpe_callstack_ldflags.conf
I think these can be safely ignored too, as most of them are constructed at

> I also think a note should be made in the description of the package that this
> was compiled with the default options and so uses the mpd process manager and
> the ch3:sock communication device.
Good point. It seems you've not noticed I did enabled dynamically loading sock,
ssm, and shm channels; the default is still the sock channel though.
I'm actually considering configuring the package to use ch3:nemesis on x86*,
since it said to offer the best performance, thoughts?

> Another thing to think about it who should take precedence among lam, openmpi,
> and mpich2 when they are all installed.
It really shouldn't matter, anyone who will knowingly install the three, should
be knowledgeable enough to set the default implementation, IMHO.


Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

More information about the package-review mailing list