Hi, I think I am reasonably happy with the current versions of the Environment modules and MPI drafts, as they should cover everything. The environment module part is quite simple, the MPI part took quite some amount of work to get everything (such as Python and Fortran modules) in it. For a while I was not quite sure which was better: not having an MPI binary suffix, or having one. On one hand not having a suffix may be easier on behalf of the user (then again running the serial version is harder when an MPI module is loaded). On the other hand, I think that it's better to run the wanted MPI version explicitly instead of blindly trusting what is in the $PATH. For consistency in binary naming we MUST have a guideline on the suffixes. My gut feeling is that suffixing is better (normally MPI enabled software makefiles produce suffixed binaries when MPI is on), thus I have ended up with suffixes (if nobody has strong negative feelings about this). As F12 is drawing nearer quite fast, I'm hoping for these guidelines to be decided upon ASAP, so the packaging side can be taken care of in time. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussilehtola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
