On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 02:13:25AM +0100, Drew Parsons wrote: > Source: petsc > Followup-For: Bug #1102465 > > As pointed out already in this bug, this warning is not a bug in PETSc. > It is working entirely as intended. > > No information was given with this bug reopening. >...
I forgot to unarchive the bug before sending the explanation, but you should have received the personal copy of it: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 13:43:22 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> To: [email protected], Drew Parsons <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Bug#1102465 closed by Debian FTP Masters <[email protected]> (reply to Drew Parsons <[email protected]>) (Bug#1102465: fixed in petsc 3.22.5+dfsg1-2) Message-ID: <abqP2P5pnH-j_39O@localhost> The bug is still present in 3.24.4+dfsg1-1 (see i386): https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/mpich Issues preventing migration: ∙ ∙ Autopkgtest for dolfin/2019.2.0~legacy20240219.1c52e83-27: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, i386: Regression ♻ (reference ♻), ppc64el: Failed (not a +regression) ♻ (reference ♻), s390x: Pass ∙ ∙ Autopkgtest for fenics-dolfinx/1:0.10.0.post5-7: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, i386: Regression ♻ (reference ♻), ppc64el: Test triggered (failure will be +ignored), s390x: Pass ∙ ∙ Autopkgtest for fenicsx-performance-tests/0.10.0-2: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, i386: Regression ♻ (reference ♻), ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass ∙ ∙ Autopkgtest for liggghts/3.8.0+repack1-14: amd64: Pass, arm64: Failed (not a regression) ♻ (reference ♻), i386: Pass, ppc64el: Failed (not a regression) +♻ (reference ♻), s390x: Regression ♻ (reference ♻) ∙ ∙ Autopkgtest for mpi4py/4.1.1-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, i386: Regression ♻ (reference ♻), ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass ∙ ∙ Autopkgtest for mpich/5.0.0-3: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, i386: Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass ∙ ∙ Autopkgtest for nwchem/7.3.1-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, i386: Pass, ppc64el: Test triggered (failure will be ignored), s390x: Pass ∙ ∙ Autopkgtest for petsc/3.24.4+dfsg1-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, i386: Regression ♻ (reference ♻), ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass ∙ ∙ Autopkgtest for python-parsl/2026.02.23+ds-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, i386: Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Reference test triggered, but real test failed +already ♻ ∙ ∙ Autopkgtest for slepc/3.24.2+dfsg1-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, i386: Regression ♻ (reference ♻), ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass ∙ ∙ Autopkgtest for sundials/7.1.1+dfsg1-10: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, i386: Regression ♻ (reference ♻), ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass ∙ ∙ Autopkgtest for vtk9/9.5.2+dfsg4-1: amd64: Failed (not a regression) ♻ (reference ♻), arm64: Failed (not a regression) ♻ (reference ♻), i386: Pass, +ppc64el: Regression ♻ (reference ♻), s390x: Regression ♻ (reference ♻) Please remove the bogus version check from include/petscsys.h. > I presume it refers to the 32-bit build failures of reverse > dependencies, which is happening due to the upgrade of mpich from v4 to >v5. Yes. > petsc (and all other MPI packages) needs to be rebuilt against > the new mpich (on 32-bit arches) > (the mpich upgrade needs a transition bug). >... If this is true, then mpich v5 needs a new soname (or at least a package rename) to ensure that packages built against v4 won't use v5. One of the following claims is incorrect: - mpich claims v5 is compatible with v4 - petsc claims v4 and v5 are incompatible > Drew cu Adrian
