On 10/13/2016 05:54 PM, Satish Balay wrote: > On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Antonio Trande wrote: > >> >> I guess, we can consider all tests successfully passed. > > Great!
Thank you very much for your fundamental support. > > I'm sure there will be more issues to deal with [when folks start > using these packages] > > For one - with our default build - one uses portable makefile [with > PETSC_DIR/PETSC_ARCH] for development. Will have to figure out - what > the approriate use model would be [with fedora petsc packages..] > Perhaps pkg-config? > > Also - I'm not sure about the utility of having a 'seq' build > packaged.. [from our point of view - its useful only when MPI is not > available - or too combersome to use]. > > Infact it can cause problems - as the mechanism to implement this is > to use a dummy/sequential/incomplete MPI (aka mpiuni) in the > package. And this can conflict with mixed with other packages that use > MPI or have their own dummy/sequential MPI.. [for ex - seq-mumps] > > Using --with-mpiuni-fortran-binding=0 can mitigate this issue with > slightly crippled fortran functionality.. > > [Hm - Perhaps we should fix this - and namespace even the > mpiuni/mpif.h using preprocessing - and remove > --with-mpiuni-fortran-binding option..] > Looks works fine (during RPM building); if libpetsc-seq will prove to be useless in future, i can stop pack it. -- --- Antonio Trande mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
Description: OpenPGP digital signature