[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bug#39588] gnu: Add mpich, scalapack-mpich, mumps-mpich, pt-scotch-mpic

From: zimoun
Subject: [bug#39588] gnu: Add mpich, scalapack-mpich, mumps-mpich, pt-scotch-mpich, python-mpi4py-mpich
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 17:41:56 +0100

Hi Ludo,

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 11:23, zimoun <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 10:08, Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> wrote:

> > > One easy move should to generalize -- if possible -- what is done in
> > > 'with-python2' or 'with-ocaml4.07'. But I am not convinced it is easy
> > > because it is clearly dependant on the build system.
> > > Well, for these particular patches, the variants are ok.
> > > But we should think about how to ease the variant generation of all the 
> > > chain.
> >
> > Well again there are things like ‘package-input-rewriting’ that could
> > help: we could define a ‘package-with-mpich’ procedure.
> Yes. 'with-python2' and 'with-ocaml4.07' rewrite the build-system
> (implicit inputs) and 'package-with-mpich' rewrites packages
> ('package-input-rewritting' so explicit ones) more tweak some
> variables (environment and/or flags).
> Sounds good. :-)

I do not know why I remove the "package-" in "package-with-python2".
Whatever! :-)
My remark was to maybe distinguish between rewriting an input and
rewriting the build-system. But after some thoughts, I do not know if
it is useful and add more complexity.

However, I do not know if the good candidate is
'package-input-rewriting' or 'package-mapping'; as in
'package-with-python2'. Well, I will try to experiment in the

All the best,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]