Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> 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. >> 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. Of course I'm happy with automation and generally having things just work. I was only meaning to use what I've done as an example. It's the general setup I don't like, but this doubtless isn't the place... However, I do have problems even with Fortran packaging, given the nightmare of module file incompatibilities and needing to use devtoolset compilers. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
