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: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx 2006-12-28 12:47 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > # for the ScientificPython-mpi package: > > rpm -qlvp /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/ScientificPython-mpi-2.6-4.i386.rpm > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1090528 Dec 28 12:39 /usr/bin/mpipython > [..] > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 111 Oct 6 12:49 > /usr/share/doc/ScientificPython-mpi-2.6/impipython > > contents of : /usr/share/doc/ScientificPython-mpi-2.6/impipython > #!/bin/csh > mpirun -np 2 /usr/local/bin/mpipython > /usr/lib/python2.1/site-packages/Scientific/BSP/Console.py $* > > you should adjust the path of mpipython since it is found at /usr/bin/mpipython > instead of /usr/local/bin/mpipython I noticed this... it was yet another reason I put this into the documentation section. It has to be hand adjusted for number of cpus to use regardless. I'm just going to end up just replacing this file completely and generating a new one. The patch for this file would be longer than the inline cat command to produce a new one. > > /usr/lib/python2.1/site-packages/Scientific/BSP/Console.py is incorrect as well since the rpm -qvlp /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/ScientificPython-bsp-2.6-4.i386.rpm > Hence the ScientificPython-bsp is a dependecy of ScientificPython-mpi I think I'm going to merge the bsp and mpi stuff into one subpackage. Should I just call the new subpackage ScientificPython-mpi or should I be more encompassing and call it ScientificPython-parallelprocessing ? If we ever get libbsp in Fedora Extras I can build the additional libbsp support into the subpackage. Once you are doing parallelization having libbsp installed is probably acceptable. > > in your spec file you should also add tcsh as requires for the > ScientificPython-mpi package, like > Requires: openmpi-libs tcsh ScientificPython-bsp technically I dont think so since the script is placed in as part of the documetnation. It is a reference script, its not critical.. I would even call it trivial. No matter what you do you have to edit this by hand to at least set the number of processors for mpirun to use. My understanding is that reference scripts or examples included as documentation in a packages %doc section do not need to include their intepreter as a hard requirement on the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review