From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:54628) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hP5Fr-0000Zy-SJ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 10 May 2019 09:08:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hP5Fq-0008Pp-HR for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 10 May 2019 09:08:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:52124) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hP5Fq-0008Pg-Dy for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 10 May 2019 09:08:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hP5Fq-0007et-0Y for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 10 May 2019 09:08:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#35666] [PATCH 0/2] Build a thread-safe hdf5 library Resent-Message-ID: From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= References: <20190510095630.16695-1-ludo@gnu.org> <87imuisf05.fsf@elephly.net> Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 15:07:29 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87imuisf05.fsf@elephly.net> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Fri, 10 May 2019 13:52:42 +0200") Message-ID: <87d0kq1mr2.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: bavier@cray.com, 35666@debbugs.gnu.org, pgarlick@tourbillion-technology.com Hi! Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: [=E2=80=A6] >> It also tells you that, if you insist, you can go ahead and pass >> =E2=80=98--enable-unsupported=E2=80=99, but you=E2=80=99re on your own. >> >> We found that Debian chose to pass =E2=80=98--enable-unsupported=E2=80= =99, and indeed >> that seems to be saner than providing a variant that does very little, >> but does it in a thread-safe way. > > What other effects does =E2=80=9C--enable-unsupported=E2=80=9D have? I s= ee that in > Fedora =E2=80=9C--enable-threadsafe=E2=80=9D was removed in 2008 because = it=E2=80=99s > =E2=80=9Cincompatible with --enable-cxx and --enable-fortran=E2=80=9D. =E2=80=9C--enable-unsupported=E2=80=9D allows you to force a build that com= bines C++, Fortran, and thread-safety. If you don=E2=80=99t pass that flag, you have = to choose between thread-safety and C++/Fortran=C2=B9. A tough choice! > Instead they seem to be building different flavours: one with > --enable-fortran, another with --enable-cxx, yet another with MPI and > --enable-parallel. Problem is, my colleagues have code that expects both C++ and thread-safety (as crazy as it might seem). They were using the Debian package until now and hadn=E2=80=99t realized about this. > Do we have contact to the hdf5 developers to ask what the implications > of =E2=80=9Cenable-unsupported=E2=80=9D are? I think it=E2=80=99s a warranty-void kind of flag: by passing it, the user asserts they understand they=E2=80=99re using a configuration not =E2=80=9C= officially supported=E2=80=9D by the HDF Group, meaning that if it=E2=80=99s buggy, we= =E2=80=99re on our own. Thoughts? Ludo=E2=80=99. =C2=B9 You would think it=E2=80=99s an April fool=E2=80=99s day prank, but = it=E2=80=99s not! We=E2=80=99re in May, at least in my timezone.