Joe is right about the stability factor.
I have staff that try to ride the bleeding edge of FC on their desktops,
and most of the time it works fine. But, for my clusters I want a stable
and long term supportable OS. I can't afford an upgrade costing downtime
or lack of availability. I also ca
Jeffrey B. Layton wrote:
Robert G. Brown wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, John Hearns wrote:
And re. the future version of Scientific Linux, there has been debate
on the list re. co-operating with CENTos and essentially using CENTos
as a base, and SL being an overlay of specific application and
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 "Robert G. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not certain that I "like" the idea of fully integrating extras
> into the main core, though. The problem with FC+extras+updates even
> now is that 6500 packages is a bit difficult to get a human brain
> around, especially when
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 "Douglas Eadline" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My understanding is that FC7 will include distro building tools
> for both custom rolls and live CD/DVD's. So I think
> you will start to see a lot of customized FC rolls that
> contain a subset of packages for a specific "domain".
My understanding is that FC7 will include distro building tools
for both custom rolls and live CD/DVD's. So I think
you will start to see a lot of customized FC rolls that
contain a subset of packages for a specific "domain".
(I have been working on such integrated suite of RPMs
for FC6)
Of course
Robert G. Brown wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, John Hearns wrote:
And re. the future version of Scientific Linux, there has been debate
on the list re. co-operating with CENTos and essentially using CENTos
as a base, and SL being an overlay of specific application and
library RPMs.
Pros and con
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Ed Hill wrote:
Help [in the form of new packagers, new packages, package reviews, bug
reports, etc...] is always welcome. Even as the list of Fedora packages
grows it is still remarkably small compared to the universe of freely
re-distributable (and thus eligible) software.
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 "Robert G. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > And re. the future version of Scientific Linux, there has been
> > debate on the list re. co-operating with CENTos and essentially
> > using CENTos as a base, and SL being an overlay of specific
> > application and library RPMs
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, John Hearns wrote:
And re. the future version of Scientific Linux, there has been debate on the
list re. co-operating with CENTos and essentially using CENTos as a base, and
SL being an overlay of specific application and library RPMs.
Pros and cons either way there.
The
> Your Make.inc links are likely broken. It may happen if you tried to
> compile with a wrong TOPdir or arch.
Thanks to your help, the error has been resolved. I was creating a directory
called /hpl and putting everything in there but didn't change the TOPdir
parameter to match.
I changed it
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 01:55:21AM -0600, Andrew Shewmaker wrote:
> People have mentioned the extra registers you get when going to
> x86-64, but I don't
> think anyone mentioned how that was related to the x87 unit. x86-64's ABI
> forces people off of the x87 unit (mostly), and that's a good thi
Well, still no luck. I have done several things but still get the exact same
error. I changed the name of my makefile to Make.Linux_x86_64 to make the arch
parameter but that didn't change anything, I am still getting the same error.
I issued the command mpicc -showme and it tells me that I hav
12 matches
Mail list logo
