[Pkg-openmpi-maintainers] Bug#456721: Processed: Re: Bug#456721: libpetsc.so depends on unexistent libraries

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

On 17 December 2007 at 21:13, Manuel Prinz wrote:
| Am Montag, den 17.12.2007, 13:36 -0600 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
| > Indeed, what were we thinking here Manuel? [...] In light of this, can
| > you remind me why you put the libs into /usr/lib/openmpi ?  I
| > understand why we put the _internal_ library files like [files
| > snipped] there, but for the visible libraries were are introducing
| > breakage by hiding them.  I am leaning towards pulling them back.  Am
| > I overlooking something?
| 
| The reasoning behind that was to fix the breaking of other MPI
| implementations by moving stuff to /usr/lib/openmpi/* and using

But that was just libmpi.so(.so)*, wasn't it?

| alternatives. At a first glance it seems like I messed something up with
| alternatives, not creating the links in the right place or something
| like that. So I fu**ed that up. I'm sorry!

I'm at work too so I didn't have time to check yet.  Recall that the final
links are actually created by the debhelper tools in conjunction with ldd, ie
what 'dpkg -c' typically shows at the end 

lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2007-12-12 13:13 ./usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libopen-pal.so.0 -> libopen-pal.so.0.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2007-12-12 13:13 ./usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libmpi.so.0 -> libmpi.so.0.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2007-12-12 13:13 ./usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libmpi_f77.so.0 -> libmpi_f77.so.0.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2007-12-12 13:13 ./usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libmpi_cxx.so.0 -> libmpi_cxx.so.0.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2007-12-12 13:13 ./usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libmpi_f90.so.0 -> libmpi_f90.so.0.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2007-12-12 13:13 ./usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libopen-rte.so.0 -> libopen-rte.so.0.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2007-12-12 13:13 ./usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libmca_common_sm.so.0 -> libmca_common_sm.so.0.0.0

are already symlinks.  I am thoroughly confused now as to what we should do
in terms a superior technical solution.   And quite frankly, I *personally*
don't care if we can co-exists with LAM and MPICH as I don't use those.
That said, this somewhat radical view is not the one I recommend as package
co-maintainer.  We should play nice with the other _if possible_ without
hideous hacks.

Adam, any hints other 'whatever, just make it work? ' ?  ;-)

Dirk

| I'll investigate that now since I use the packages at work with no
| problem. If we're lucky, I'll have that fixed by the end of the day.
| Though I fear that we'll still be hit by #220044.
| 
| Best regards
| Manuel

-- 
Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.