> On Apr 17, 2019, at 1:35 AM, Balay, Satish <ba...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Smith, Barry F. via petsc-users wrote: > >> This is fine for "hacking" on PETSc but worthless for any other package. >> Here is my concern, when someone >> realizes there is a problem with a package they are using through a package >> manager they think, crud I have to >> >> 1) find the git repository for this package >> 2) git clone the package >> 3) figure out how to build the package from source, is it ./configure, >> cmake, what are the needed arguments,... >> 4) wait for the entire thing to build >> >> then I can go in and investigate the problem and provide and test the fix >> via a pull request. Heck I'm not going to bother. >> >> Thus a lot of potential contributions of small fixes that everyone in the >> community would benefit from are lost. This is why, for >> me, an ideal HPC package manager provides a trivial process for providing >> fixes/improvements to other packages. >> >> For example Sajid could have easily figured out the VecView_MPI_HDF5() bug >> and provided a fix but just the hassle of >> logistics (not ability to solve the problem) prevented him from providing >> the bug fix to everyone rapidly. > I never said that any current practices are better than using spack! It is just that perhaps with a few tweaks spack could provide a way to fundamentally improve our current practices (which are, as you acknowledge cumbersome). Barry > Even without spack and multiple packages - this is not a easy thing to > do. For ex: most of our users install petsc from tarball. > > And if they find a bug - they have to go through similar complicated > process [create a bitbucket account, get a fork - learn the petsc PR > process - make a PR etc]. > > With spack - I stick to the usual process - and don't get bogged down > by 'spack' support for this process. > > If I see a breakage - I do 'spack build-env package [this has its own > issues] - attempt a fix - get it first working with a spack build. > > [Alternative is to just edit the package file to get my fix - if its a patch > I can find] > > > Once I have it working [the major issue is taken care off]. Then I > have a diff/patch and then worry about how to submit this diff/patch > to upstream. > > Sure its a multi step model - and has many trip points. But is not > that our current petsc only model doesn't have any. > > Satish
Re: [petsc-users] VecView to hdf5 broken for large (complex) vectors
Smith, Barry F. via petsc-users Tue, 16 Apr 2019 23:40:35 -0700
- Re: [petsc-users... Balay, Satish via petsc-users
- Re: [petsc-users... Sajid Ali via petsc-users
- Re: [petsc-users... Balay, Satish via petsc-users
- Re: [petsc-users... Smith, Barry F. via petsc-users
- Re: [petsc-users... Sajid Ali via petsc-users
- Re: [petsc-users... Balay, Satish via petsc-users
- Re: [petsc-users... Balay, Satish via petsc-users
- Re: [petsc-users... Jed Brown via petsc-users
- Re: [petsc-users... Smith, Barry F. via petsc-users
- Re: [petsc-users... Balay, Satish via petsc-users
- Re: [petsc-users... Smith, Barry F. via petsc-users
- Re: [petsc-users... Smith, Barry F. via petsc-users
- Re: [petsc-users... Jed Brown via petsc-users
- Re: [petsc-users... Balay, Satish via petsc-users
- Re: [petsc-users] VecView to hdf5 broken f... Smith, Barry F. via petsc-users
- Re: [petsc-users] VecView to hdf5 broken f... Smith, Barry F. via petsc-users