| 1 |
Speaking of ebuilds and fortran, I've been nosing around trying to get |
| 2 |
things working with lam-mpi (I'm actually just administering a machine that |
| 3 |
someone else is trying to use mpi on). |
| 4 |
>From looking at the various ebuilds for lam-mpi, lapack, and blas, it looks |
| 5 |
like newer ebuilds use fortran.eclass, while older ones hardcode the |
| 6 |
fortran compiler they want to use into the ebuild. There is no support |
| 7 |
whatsoever for Portland Group (pgf). |
| 8 |
To get everything working with pgf90, I had to setup some ebuilds in an |
| 9 |
overlay which, a) avoided fortran.eclass and b) removed the FC/F77 |
| 10 |
hardcoding in the ebuilds for blas and lapack, so that my FC setting in |
| 11 |
make.conf would be used. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
fortran.eclass has to be avoided, because it simply punts if the compiler |
| 14 |
you request is not in its hardcoded list of blessed compilers. |
| 15 |
It looks like fortran.eclass is a work in progress. Anybody have more |
| 16 |
information on that? I'm wondering if I can help so that I can pick a |
| 17 |
fortran compiler to use on a system, without having to hack ebuilds in a |
| 18 |
portage overlay. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-bryan |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Donnie Berkholz writes: |
| 23 |
> Bryan Green wrote: |
| 24 |
> > Interesting question. Is there a difference? |
| 25 |
> > I am under the impression that lam-mpi needs to be built with pgf for |
| 26 |
> > programs that use lam-mpi to be built with pgf. Am I mistaken? |
| 27 |
> > I any case, I found that I get get it to build by setting the FC environmen |
| 28 |
> t |
| 29 |
> > variable. My initial error was apparently caused because of the lack of a |
| 30 |
> > license server setting. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Good to hear it! If you ever come across an ebuild where FC/F77, CC, or |
| 33 |
> CXX aren't respected, please file a bug. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Thanks, |
| 36 |
> Donnie |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-cluster@g.o mailing list |
Archives