[mpich-discuss] Question on the Centos/RH binaries for 1.2.1

[Hiatt, Dave M]

Ok, so all the Linux entries are source, there are no binaries for that, am I understanding that correctly?

-----Original Message-----
From: chan at mcs.anl.gov [mailto:chan at mcs.anl.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:04 PM
To: Hiatt, Dave M [CH-REL]
Cc: mpich-discuss at mcs.anl.gov
Subject: Re: [mpich-discuss] Question on the Centos/RH binaries for
1.2.1



I don't have access to CentOS, so can't test it for you.
For Fedora 12, I download the rpm files for
mpich2 and mpich2-devel, and install them as
"rpm -ivh mpich2*.rpm".  Here provided that
gcc/gfortran are the compilers that you can use.
If you want to use other compilers like icc/ifort...,
you need to download the source tarball and build mpich2 yourself.
Using rpm directly instead of yum has drawbacks but it
is the simplest way to install the rpm files.

A.Chan
----- "Dave M Hiatt" <dave.m.hiatt at citi.com> wrote:

> Yeah, problem is, the security gnomes won't let me have internet
> access on my x64's.  So I'm stuck with sneaker net.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpich-discuss-bounces at mcs.anl.gov
> [mailto:mpich-discuss-bounces at mcs.anl.gov]On Behalf Of
> chan at mcs.anl.gov
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:48 PM
> To: mpich-discuss at mcs.anl.gov
> Subject: Re: [mpich-discuss] Question on the Centos/RH binaries for
> 1.2.1
>
>
>
> For Redhat linux, the easiest way to install mpich2 is to
> use "yum", i.e. do "yum install mpich2 mpich2-devel" as root.
> For CentOS RH 5.3, you probably need "el5" which I think means
> "Enterprise Linux 5".
>
> A.Chan
>
> ----- "Dave M Hiatt" <dave.m.hiatt at citi.com> wrote:
>
> > If I may, I have a question.  I am a neophyte in terms of Linux,
> just
> > setting up my first Linux node.  I have many Windows x64 XP nodes
> > running.  But I am in great need to get a binary up and running on
> the
> > Centos equivalent of RH 5.3.
> >
> > I followed the URL's on the site but I don' t really understand the
> > nomenclature for the releases.  I took the "el" to mean Enterprise
> > editions, and the "fc" to mean the standard releases.  I have so
> far
> > one box built up for Linux on the Centos RH 5.3 equivalent.  I am
> > running x64.  I picked the 1.2.1 release version, and followed
> that,
> > but do not have the Linux knowledge to decipher what the 1.; 2.; 3.
> > meanings are and what fc1x implies.  I downloaded 1.fc13, 2.fc13,
> and
> > 3.fc13 thinking they are related and should be installed in that
> > order.  Is that correct?  Could you educate me.  Sorry for my
> > ignorance.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > "Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich". - Daffy Duck
> > Dave Hiatt
> > Market Risk Systems Integration
> > CitiMortgage, Inc.
> > 1000 Technology Dr.
> > Third Floor East, M.S. 55
> > O'Fallon, MO 63368-2240
> >
> > Phone:  636-261-1408
> > Mobile: 314-452-9165
> > FAX:    636-261-1312
> > Email:     Dave.M.Hiatt at citigroup.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpich-discuss mailing list
> > mpich-discuss at mcs.anl.gov
> > https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/mpich-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> mpich-discuss mailing list
> mpich-discuss at mcs.anl.gov
> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/mpich-discuss