[ewg] Fwd: [ofa-general] OFED 1.2 Feb-26 meeting summary
jsquyres at cisco.com
Sun Mar 18 04:01:38 PDT 2007
It seems odd to me that you [repeatedly] brush off several members of
the community that are saying that it's *not* working smoothly enough.
1. We're doing things in the installer that are very much *not* what
any Linux distro wants us to do (e.g., munge %build into %install).
2. RHEL and SLES -- two of our Big community targets -- are replacing
all of our installer work with their own.
3. The MPI packages all have to do weird (read: non-standard and
potentially hazardous) things to get installed properly.
This is not the first time that Doug and I have tried to say "what
we're doing is wrong!"
On Mar 17, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> 2. *NOT AN MPI ISSUE*: how the RPMs are built is Bad(tm). Not
>>> deleting the buildroot is Bad; munging %build into %install is
>>> Bad; ...etc. This needs to change. 4 choices jump to mind:
>>> a. Keep the same scheme. Ick.
>>> b. Install while we build (i.e., the normal way to build a pile
>>> of interdependent RPMs)
>>> c. Use chroot (Red Hat does this in their internal setup, for
>>> d. Only distribute binary RPMs for supported platforms;
>>> source is
>>> available for those who want it.
>> d. is the normal route for anyone wanting to provide a known working
>> environment. Building locally is fraught with perils related to
>> compilers, custom core libraries, and other things that the EWG can't
>> control and can't realistically support.
> I don't think d is realistic simply because OFED is not redhat, it
> needs to be distribution agnostic.
But OFED is *not* distribution agnostic. We have a specific,
documented set of distributions that we support. Having the source
code available is great, of course. But Cisco, for example, supports
only a specific set of distros/versions and we distribute binaries
for them. I believe that others may be doing the same...?
> In our experience people *want* to use custom compilers,
> custom core libraries etc.
Do you have customers who build the OFA code base with non-GNU
compilers? Right now, the OFED installer only lets you choose none-
GNU compilers for the MPI installations -- not the OFA code base
itself. If this is your strongest point, then refer to what I said
a) it's the MPI implementations that are complaining that what we are
doing is Bad
b) it's the MPI implementations that have to do weird/non-standard/
potentially hazardous things to get installed properly
More information about the ewg