Jack Poulson <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Jack Poulson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Jack Poulson <[email protected]> writes: >>> > By the way, was any decision made on having an repository for the PETSc >>> > modifications of (Par)Metis? >>> >>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/pkg-parmetis/ >>> >>> I can give you access to this repository if you want to get a branch >>> going. Note that it has been modified to de-bundle metis and gklib, so >>> that we can combine binary libA that links against libmetis with libB >>> that links against libparmetis. >>> >> >> Thanks. That would help. Hopefully I can do this relatively soon. >> >> Jack >> > > What is going on with the parmetis CMakeLists.txt? > https://bitbucket.org/petsc/pkg-parmetis/src/1c1a9fd0f408dc4d42c57f5c3ee6ace411eb222b/CMakeLists.txt?at=master > > It seems to be completely broken. If so, shouldn't it be removed?
I think CMakeLists.txt was mainly set up for use by $PETSC_DIR/config/PETSc/packages/parmetis.py, but the modifications seem to have mainly been to use METIS and GKlib without the hack of symlinking in the build directory. > Am I supposed to be separately checking out pkg-metis if I want to use > pkg-parmetis? No, but it expects METIS to be built (and specified using METIS_PATH; it looks like a bug in parmetis.py that it can link the wrong libmetis.so). > Should we be having this discussion on petsc-dev instead? Yes, moving the thread and Cc'ing people who may be interested.
