On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 16:28:25 -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 11:42 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 15:05:00 -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Ready to transition: mumps, petsc, slepc, hdf5 -- not sure why these
didn't go into testing this
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 17:03:51 -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Oh dear. Do we need to do this for every reverse-depends package in
order for the whole thing to transition?
Yes. If you have a list of debs a single bug probably works though.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description:
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 22:40 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 16:28:25 -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 11:42 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 15:05:00 -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Ready to transition: mumps, petsc,
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 15:05:00 -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Ready to transition: mumps, petsc, slepc, hdf5 -- not sure why these
didn't go into testing this past weekend, they should all be ready.
mumps and hdf5 have now transitioned. For petsc/slepc, they either need
to build again on
Adam C Powell IV hazel...@debian.org (13/02/2012):
Writing in with an update:
Thanks.
Ready to transition: mumps, petsc, slepc, hdf5 -- not sure why these
didn't go into testing this past weekend, they should all be ready.
Not quite:
http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/hdf5.html
Le mardi 14 février 2012 à 12:15 +0100, Cyril Brulebois a écrit :
Adam C Powell IV hazel...@debian.org (13/02/2012):
Writing in with an update:
Thanks.
Ready to transition: mumps, petsc, slepc, hdf5 -- not sure why these
didn't go into testing this past weekend, they should all be
On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 12:15 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Adam C Powell IV hazel...@debian.org (13/02/2012):
Writing in with an update:
Thanks.
Ready to transition: mumps, petsc, slepc, hdf5 -- not sure why these
didn't go into testing this past weekend, they should all be ready.
Writing in with an update:
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 14:59 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Adam C Powell IV hazel...@debian.org (26/01/2012):
On Tue, 2012-01-24 at 00:51 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
That means one “OK-able” package, one “oops-broken-for-a-long-while”
package, and several
On Tue, 2012-01-24 at 00:51 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Adam C Powell IV hazel...@debian.org (23/01/2012):
deal.II detects the PETSc version and acts accordingly, I believe 7.1.0
will work through 3.2. I need to work on upgrading from 7.0.0 to 7.1.0.
[…]
Illuminator has major
Adam C Powell IV hazel...@debian.org (26/01/2012):
On Tue, 2012-01-24 at 00:51 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
That means one “OK-able” package, one “oops-broken-for-a-long-while”
package, and several “unknown-status” packages. To keep everyone as
testing candidates until this transition is
Hello Julian,
On Sat, 2012-01-21 at 16:49 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
Hi,
it seems there's currently a move from petsc and slepc 3.1 to 3.2 in
sid. In addition to the library package names changing, presumably
because the new versions are not binary-compatible, the devel package
were
Adam C Powell IV hazel...@debian.org (23/01/2012):
deal.II detects the PETSc version and acts accordingly, I believe 7.1.0
will work through 3.2. I need to work on upgrading from 7.0.0 to 7.1.0.
[…]
Illuminator has major problems -- the PETSc object on which all of
illuminator is based has
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Adam C Powell IV hazel...@debian.org wrote:
Can't speak for the others (dolfin, feel++, gmsh).
DOLFIN 1.0.0 works with PETSc/SLEPc 3.2, only minor changes are needed
in the Debian files. I can make a new upload soon.
Johannes
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
13 matches
Mail list logo
