1 |
On 26/02/08 09:44 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
2 |
> On 10:45 Tue 26 Feb , Justin Bronder wrote: |
3 |
> > I've been spending the majority of my Gentoo-related time working on a |
4 |
> > solution to bug 44132 [1], basically, trying to find a way to gracefully |
5 |
> > handle multiple installs of various MPI implementations at the same time in |
6 |
> > Gentoo. Theres more information about the solution in my devspace [2], but |
7 |
> > a quick summary is that there is a new package (empi) that is much like |
8 |
> > crossdev, a new eselect module for empi, and a new eclass that handles both |
9 |
> > mpi implementations and packages depending on mpi. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Is it enough like crossdev enough to share code, with perhaps a bit of |
12 |
> abstraction? Maintaining the same thing twice is rarely a good idea... |
13 |
|
14 |
They are similar in that they both use the same finagling with portage to |
15 |
install things to different locations, but it pretty much ends there. So |
16 |
far as sharing code, I can see maybe the symlink, portdir and /etc/portage |
17 |
stuff that might be shared. Given that crossdev is ~650 lines and empi is |
18 |
half that though, I'm of the opinion that it's not worth the effort. The |
19 |
majority of the work in empi is reading command line arguments and testing to |
20 |
make sure preconditions are met. |
21 |
|
22 |
> |
23 |
> > So, I think I have pushed this work far enough along for it to actually be |
24 |
> > somewhat officially offered. My question then, is where should this be |
25 |
> > located? There are several mpi packages in the science overlay already, so |
26 |
> > should I push this work to there, or would it be more appropriate to make a |
27 |
> > new overlay specifically for hp-cluster? |
28 |
> > |
29 |
> > Future work related to this project will be getting all mpi implementations |
30 |
> > and dependant packages converted in the same overlay before bringing it up on |
31 |
> > -dev for discussion about inclusion into the main tree. |
32 |
> > |
33 |
> > I have no real preference either way, but the science team does already have |
34 |
> > an overlay :) Let me know what you think. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> Seems like people already committing cluster stuff to the sci overlay |
37 |
> could help; maybe they'll port packages, fix bugs, etc. With a new |
38 |
> overlay, we'd have to start from scratch, and I don't really see the |
39 |
> point. |
40 |
|
41 |
Pretty much sums up why I'm posting here :) |
42 |
|
43 |
-- |
44 |
Justin Bronder |