On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:34:17PM +0000, Dave Love wrote: > 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. 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? Zbyszek -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
