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/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to