I tried, without success so far, to help cmake(FindMPI.cmake) find the proper mpi implementation.<div>It still finds openmpi which breaks linkage with boost::mpi<br><br></div><div>Best regards</div><div>C.<br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Adam C Powell IV <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hazelsct@debian.org">hazelsct@debian.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 02:25 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:<br>
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 09:02:41AM +0200, Christophe Prud'homme wrote:<br>
><br>
> > On my side life depends solely on mpi-default-dev, it seems that some other<br>
> > package don't (e.g. hdf5), isn't it a problem ?<br>
><br>
> Yes, something like that is likely the problem.<br>
><br>
> Note that libhdf5-mpi-dev is supposed to alleviate that problem as it<br>
> depends on the default MPI version. Installing that package should<br>
> not pull in any non-default MPI packages, IMHO. Adam: any comment?<br>
<br>
</div>Indeed, that's the idea: Build-Depend on libhdf5-mpi-dev and<br>
mpi-default-dev and you should have a consistent MPI implementation<br>
across both.<br>
<br>
That said, the LAM HDF5 implementation seems to be missing a couple of<br>
libraries, such that for example PETSc doesn't build on architectures<br>
where LAM is the default. I disabled PETSc HDF5 support on those<br>
arches, but haven't investigated further.<br>
<br>
-Adam<br>
<font color="#888888">--<br>
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6<br>
<br>
Engineering consulting with open source tools<br>
<a href="http://www.opennovation.com/" target="_blank">http://www.opennovation.com/</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div>