On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Barry Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > Matt, > > Since it “is in” SuperLU then you don’t need to make a package for it, > simply require the user link in with superlu to use those functions. > > I f2c'd it so I could actually see what was happening. > > For testing you should have just put it in some branch, not in next. BTW: > it generates nightly build errors that I don’t want to deal with if it is not > to be kept in but they mess up next. > > 1) It is in "some branch" but pushing to next is exactly how we test. > > 2) Which build is broken? You have a function that returns a complex number (though actually it seems it should only return real anyways). This is illegal under Microsoft c++ complex numbers. Barry > > Matt > > > > Barry > > On Nov 20, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> writes: > >> This http://www.hsl.rl.ac.uk/licencing.html tells me that I am not doing > >> anything wrong until we release :) > > > > It says "distribute", which the public repositories and nightly tarballs > > would fall under. > > > >> I want this there for testing. Since it is already in SuperLU, I will > >> just move it into a package that we can download with configure. > > > > Thanks, but the license would require you to download it from their site > > rather than distribute as a tarball that --download-hsl would grab. You > > can contact them to get explicit permission. I don't know whether > > SuperLU or Trilinos has done this, but we should not be doing it without > > permission. If that means we cannot use HSL functions, so be it. > > > > > -- > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments > is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments > lead. > -- Norbert Wiener
