Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2003, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
>
>
>>we can now set the includedir: great !
>
>
> Woo hoo! :-)
>
>
>>Nevertheless, concerning the default behaviour, I have a naive question:
>>for general maitenance and to avoid interferences with other (MPI)
>>package, is it not more safe to install the LAM/MPI headers in a `lam'
>>directory, i.e., `PREFIX/include/lam' rather than `PREFIX/include' ?
>
>
> We've always felt that this was a local system administrator issue. Many
> people install LAM in a separate directory anyway. Keep in mind that the
> default install for LAM only installs 3 files in $includedir:
> lam_config_bottom.h, lam_config.h, and mpi.h (and a subdirectory for all
> the C++ header files named "mpi2cxx"). These are fairly safe names --
Ah !
I have a full collection of headers in $includedir
(more than three)
What is going on ?
> meaning that the lam_* names clearly indicate that they belong to LAM/MPI.
> There's nothing that we can do about the "mpi.h" name because it is
> mandated by the MPI standard. So if you try to install multiple different
> MPI implementations into the same tree, you're going to have problems.
> However, mpi.h is only one of the problems -- MPI implementations tend to
> have "mpirun", "mpicc", "libmpi.*", etc. -- all of which are likely to
> conflict. Hence, most users, when they have multiple installations of MPI
> implementations, tend to install them in separate trees anyway.
>
> Alos, with the "make uninstall" that LAM ships with, if you need to back
> out your LAM installation, you can do so reliably.
>
> But for those who want to override this behavior, they can [now] use the
> --includedir option to configure. :-)
>
|
