[Bug 220766] Review Request: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: ScientificPython -  a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766





------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com  2006-12-28 12:47 EST -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> # for the ScientificPython-mpi package:
> 
> rpm -qlvp /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/ScientificPython-mpi-2.6-4.i386.rpm
> -rwxr-xr-x    1 root    root          1090528 Dec 28 12:39 /usr/bin/mpipython
> [..]
> -rwxr-xr-x    1 root    root              111 Oct  6 12:49
> /usr/share/doc/ScientificPython-mpi-2.6/impipython
> 
> contents of : /usr/share/doc/ScientificPython-mpi-2.6/impipython
> #!/bin/csh
> mpirun -np 2 /usr/local/bin/mpipython
> /usr/lib/python2.1/site-packages/Scientific/BSP/Console.py $*


> 
> you should adjust the path of mpipython since it is found at /usr/bin/mpipython
> instead of /usr/local/bin/mpipython 

I noticed this... it was yet another reason I put this into the documentation
section.  It has to be hand adjusted for number of cpus to use regardless.

I'm just going to end up just replacing this file completely and generating a
new one. The patch for this file would be longer than the inline cat command to
produce a new one.

> 
> /usr/lib/python2.1/site-packages/Scientific/BSP/Console.py is incorrect as
well since the  rpm -qvlp
/home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/ScientificPython-bsp-2.6-4.i386.rpm

> Hence the ScientificPython-bsp is a dependecy of ScientificPython-mpi
I think I'm going to merge the bsp and mpi stuff into one subpackage. Should I
just call the new subpackage ScientificPython-mpi or should I be more
encompassing and call it ScientificPython-parallelprocessing ?  If we ever get
libbsp in Fedora Extras I can build the additional libbsp support into the
subpackage. Once you are doing parallelization having libbsp installed is
probably acceptable. 


> 
> in your spec file you should also add tcsh as requires for the
> ScientificPython-mpi package, like 
> Requires:       openmpi-libs tcsh ScientificPython-bsp

technically I dont think so since the script is placed in as part of the
documetnation.  It is a reference script, its not critical.. I would even call
it trivial. No matter what you do you have to edit this by hand to at least set
the number of processors for mpirun to use. My understanding is that reference
scripts or examples included as documentation in a packages %doc section do not
need to include their intepreter as a hard requirement on the package.



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.