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

[Hiatt, Dave M]

Roger that, I'll download

-----Original Message-----
From: mpich-discuss-bounces at mcs.anl.gov
[mailto:mpich-discuss-bounces at mcs.anl.gov]On Behalf Of Darius Buntinas
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:18 PM
To: mpich-discuss at mcs.anl.gov
Subject: Re: [mpich-discuss] Question on the Centos/RH binaries for
1.2.1


You should be able to download an install the binary rpms from
1.2.1/2.el5/x86_64.  Just download the rpm, then do a

    yum localinstall XXX.rpm

    (or "rpm -ivh XXX.rpm")

(It looks like the fedoraproject server is down for the moment, so I
can't double check the name of the rpm right now.)

-d

Hiatt, Dave M wrote:
> I wish!  The gnomes who run our security ban my x64 systems from having any internet access, they see us as the root of all evil.  We're "different".  The irony is not lost on me, but despite my best efforts, I can not enlighten those particular masses.  I do have yum installed, but of course a lot of good that does me when I'm fighting this kind of thinking.  Sorry for that, but it helps to vent!
>
> So are these actually binaries.  Or should I focus on sources and do a build?  If so, I assume the associated sources are the src downloads, but do I need more than that if I must do a build.  I was expecting the x86_64 were binaries?  Am I confused.  Again sorry for the ignorance.
>
> dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpich-discuss-bounces at mcs.anl.gov
> [mailto:mpich-discuss-bounces at mcs.anl.gov]On Behalf Of Pavan Balaji
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:32 PM
> To: mpich-discuss at mcs.anl.gov
> Subject: Re: [mpich-discuss] Question on the Centos/RH binaries for
> 1.2.1
>
>
>
> You should use the "el" version; "fc" is for Fedora core. I believe
> you'll need 1.2.1/2.el5/x86_64 for your system.
>
> But, can't you add an EPEL repo to Internet package install sources, and
> do a yum install or equivalent to install mpich2? That'll automatically
> check for dependencies, which makes it much easier.
>
>  -- Pavan
>
> On 12/15/2009 01:25 PM, Hiatt, Dave M 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
>
> --
> Pavan Balaji
> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
mpich-discuss mailing list
mpich-discuss at mcs.anl.gov
https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/mpich-discuss