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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=171993 ------- Additional Comments From dakingun@xxxxxxxxx 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 build-time. > > 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. ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/mpich2/mpich2-1.0.7-3.fc9.src.rpm ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/mpich2/mpich2.spec -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review