Re: petsc interface to other packages

On 08/11/17 17:06, Drew Parsons wrote: On Wed, 2017-11-08 at 15:36 +0100, Matteo Semplice wrote: --- Your petsc source tree is broken. Use "git status" to check, or remove the entire directory and start all over

Re: scilab: not O anymore?

Hi, Le 06/11/2017 à 12:30, Sylvestre Ledru a écrit : > > On 02/11/2017 23:28, Julien Puydt wrote: >> The fact that git.scilab.org and bugzilla.scilab.org aren't available >> doesn't help :-/ >> > I have a mirror here: https://github.com/opencollab/scilab The bug tracker is back ; not their git

Re: petsc interface to other packages

On Wed, 2017-11-08 at 15:36 +0100, Matteo Semplice wrote: > You're running stretch, but that ought not to be a problem as far as the behaviour of dpkg-buildpackage goes. Still a mystery why it's not applying debian patches then. > > Sorry to be a pain, but the only good news I see is that >

Re: petsc interface to other packages

On 08/11/17 14:13, Drew Parsons wrote: On Wed, 2017-11-08 at 12:00 +0100, Matteo Semplice wrote: On 08/11/17 08:33, Drew Parsons wrote: Hi Drew, I cloned the git repo, switched to experimental branch, branched off again to "local" to make my changes but it does not compile. So I

Re: petsc interface to other packages

On Wed, 2017-11-08 at 12:00 +0100, Matteo Semplice wrote: > On 08/11/17 08:33, Drew Parsons wrote: > > > Hi Drew, > I cloned the git repo, switched to experimental branch, > branched > off again to "local" to make my changes but it does not compile. So > I > returned to experimental and

Re: Fwd: RFS: boost-numeric-bindings/0.99-1 [ITP] -- Numeric Library Bindings for Boost

Hi Ghislain, Thank you for checking the package! On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > I have got a few reservations about this package: > > - The ITP did not motivate why the packaging was needed. Is it a (future) > build dependency for another

Re: petsc interface to other packages

On 08/11/17 08:33, Drew Parsons wrote: On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 12:07 +0100, Matteo Semplice wrote: On 07/11/17 04:12, Drew Parsons wrote: You've got 4 options: 1) scotch support is activated. scotch provides the same functionality as parmetis. Can you use it instead? In principle, yes,

Updating fplll in unstable

Hi, there has been a new version of fplll, 5.2.0 in september ; I updated the repository then, but it wasn't a good idea to push it as sagemath was still using 5.1.0 (through fpylll). The situation is now different, since sagemath updated to this version of fplll two weeks ago :

Re: Fwd: RFS: boost-numeric-bindings/0.99-1 [ITP] -- Numeric Library Bindings for Boost

I have got a few reservations about this package: - The ITP did not motivate why the packaging was needed. Is it a (future) build dependency for another application or library? - The software has not received any updates in 6 years according to the upstream repository [1]. - Its principal