packaging mpich2 -- conflicts with lam and file layoutb

[Tom 'spot' Callaway]

On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 13:50 -0500, Ed Hill wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> Deji Akingunola has stepped forward to package mpich2 and I'm reviewing
> it:
> 
>   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171993
> 
> Two questions have come up that aren't (afaict) covered by the Fedora
> Extras packaging guidelines and we're looking for "authoritative"
> answers:
> 
>  1) What is official policy on conflicts between Extras and Core
>     packages?  I have a vague memory that "no conflicts" is the 
>     rule but I don't see it documented anywhere...  [or maybe I 
>     just need to look harder? ;-)]

The official policy has always been "don't do that". :) I probably
should document that better.

>  2) What should one do in the case of packaging multiple MPI 
>     implementations?  The "interesting" problem with different 
>     MPI implementations (eg. LAM/MPI, mpich, mpich2) is that 
>     they all want to provide a set of binaries, headers, man 
>     pages and libs that have similar (many identical) names.
>     So where does one put them?  I like:
> 
>       /usr/lib/${MPI_IMPL_NAME}/{include,lib,man,bin}
> 
>     but thats just my opinion and more experienced packagers 
>     may have a better idea...?

I'd rather do this:

%{_libdir}/${MPI_IMPL_NAME}/
%{_includedir}/${MPI_IMPL_NAME}/

And use something like alternatives to manage the binaries, without
putting them in a "magic" dir that violates the FHS. 

lam will probably need some work to meet these guidelines, but I'll push
internally to get it fixed for FC5.

Let me know how I can help.

~spot
-- 
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!