|
|
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 13:50 -0500, Ed Hill wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Deji Akingunola has stepped forward to package mpich2 and I'm reviewing
> it:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171993
>
> Two questions have come up that aren't (afaict) covered by the Fedora
> Extras packaging guidelines and we're looking for "authoritative"
> answers:
>
> 1) What is official policy on conflicts between Extras and Core
> packages? I have a vague memory that "no conflicts" is the
> rule but I don't see it documented anywhere... [or maybe I
> just need to look harder? ;-)]
The official policy has always been "don't do that". :) I probably
should document that better.
> 2) What should one do in the case of packaging multiple MPI
> implementations? The "interesting" problem with different
> MPI implementations (eg. LAM/MPI, mpich, mpich2) is that
> they all want to provide a set of binaries, headers, man
> pages and libs that have similar (many identical) names.
> So where does one put them? I like:
>
> /usr/lib/${MPI_IMPL_NAME}/{include,lib,man,bin}
>
> but thats just my opinion and more experienced packagers
> may have a better idea...?
I'd rather do this:
%{_libdir}/${MPI_IMPL_NAME}/
%{_includedir}/${MPI_IMPL_NAME}/
And use something like alternatives to manage the binaries, without
putting them in a "magic" dir that violates the FHS.
lam will probably need some work to meet these guidelines, but I'll push
internally to get it fixed for FC5.
Let me know how I can help.
~spot
--
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
|
|