Dave Love <fx@gnu.org> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes@inria.fr> writes:
>
>>> * mpi.scm (hwloc)[outputs]: Replace lib with nogui.
>>> (hwloc)[arguments]: Change configure --prefix; use "nogui" output,
>>> not "lib"; populate "all" output.
>>> (openmpi)[inputs]: Use hwloc-nogui.
>>
>> The downside of this is that the “nogui” output is less discoverable
>> (and it’s another user-visible breakage.)
>
> I don't understand why it's worse than currently.  "hwloc" will provide
> the same as before, won't it?  I guess developer breakage could be fixed
> by retaining the lib output if it matters.
>
> Maybe it's helpful to try to document what sort of stability is expected
> currently?

Concretely, I have a bunch of packages for linear algebra software
developed at work.  When we add/remove an output to hwloc, those
packages may fail to build (for instance, currently they expect the
“lib” output of hwloc.)

Likewise, “guix package -u” doesn’t deal with output changes (we do have
a mechanism to deal with package renames, but not with output changes.)

>> Also, it shouldn’t make any difference to the closure size of openmpi
>> anyway, no?
>
> Right.  It wasn't for openmpi specifically.
>
>>> +         (add-after 'install 'install-openmpi
>>> +           (lambda* (#:key outputs #:allow-other-keys)
>>> +             (let ((dest (format #f "~a/lib/valgrind"
>>> +                                 (assoc-ref outputs "openmpi"))))
>>> +               (mkdir-p dest)
>>> +               (zero?
>>> +                (system (format #f "mv ~a/lib/valgrind/libmpiwrap* ~a"
>>> +                                (assoc-ref outputs "out") dest)))))))))
>>
>> Why move it to a separate output?  After all, we can keep it in “out”
>> since all it costs is the size of libmpiwrap.so, right?
>>
>> Also, I assume that this is functionally equivalent to Open MPI’s
>> built-in Valgrind support, is it?
>
> This is probably moot.  It isn't entirely equivalent but, more
> importantly, the builtin support apparently doesn't have the performance
> hit which was documented; I haven't checked experimentally.  See this
> thread, though not all my questions were answered:
> <https://www.mail-archive.com/users@lists.open-mpi.org//msg31459.html>.
>
> The wrapper library may still be relevant for mpich-y MPIs, if they get
> used -- I don't know.

OK.

So to me that means we can apply the patch below and be done with it.
Fine with you?

Thanks,
Ludo’.