On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:18:30AM +, Nico Schlömer wrote:
> [binutils] just turn it off
>
> @Felix Agreed?
sure, makes sense! let's postpone the static link bfd thing.
thank you
felix
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 12:07:11PM +0200, Massimiliano Leoni wrote:
> The latest update of binutils to version 2.26.1-1 makes it imopssible to
> compile against trilinos. The linker complains
>
> /usr/bin/ld: warning: libbfd-2.26-system.so, needed by
>
>
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:58:02PM +0100, Nico Schlömer wrote:
As for the prefixing of the libraries with trilinos_, I'd rather
refrain from it for the moment. The arguments I can see for this
i see. perhaps it would be helpful to dig out the the referenced
'discussion with the ftpmaster' for
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:22:23AM +0100, Nico Schlömer wrote:
I would suggest to first go with a monolithic
package and split it up at a later point.
yes. the old trilinos debian source package had a libname.patch and a
soname.patch, these fix the names for a monolithic package. i suggest to
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:15:49PM +0100, Nico Schlömer wrote:
A quick poll on the Trilinos package naming:
Right now, we have libtrilinos, which triggers a
package-name-doesnt-match-sonames warning since none of the Trilinos
libraries is called libtrilinos.* (rather libepetra.*, libbelos.*,
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:52:19AM +0100, Nico Schlömer wrote:
Strange, libparmetis-dev should be in jessie, cf.
https://packages.debian.org/jessie/libparmetis-dev.
indeed it is, and i missed that. curiously, parmetis is non-free, and
that is why i missed it.
from my understanding (to some
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:51:24PM +0100, Nico Schlömer wrote:
I checked all other dependencies manually and found that
libparmetis-dev was the only thing from non-free. I removed it from
the list; please retry building.
the build succeeded without the ENABLE_ParMETIS switch (takes
forever..).
