packaging mpich2 -- conflicts with lam and file layoutb

[Deji Akingunola]

On 11/8/05, Tom 'spot' Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 11:42 -0500, Deji Akingunola wrote:

>
> Binaries need to live in %{_bindir}. By using alternatives, you can
> choose the implementation which provides "mpicc". The catch is that each
> package which provides "mpicc" needs to rename that to
> "mpicc.${MPI_IMPL_NAME}". I'm willing to work with the lam maintainer to
> make sure that we do this for FC5.
>
> Look at sendmail and postfix for an example of how this should work.
>
o.k., I got it now. Packaging mpich2 for extras will have to wait then
for Core's lam to take a lead in implementing this structure.
Thanks to everyone who's contibuted to this.

Deji