#40039: New port: mumps 4.10.0 - a library for solving sparse linear systems -------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: wimmer@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: submission | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.2.0 Resolution: | Keywords: Port: | -------------------------+-------------------------------- Comment (by wimmer@…): Replying to [comment:3 sean@…]:
MUMPS is a bit of a train wreck of a package but I'll comment that I already have MUMPS and its dependents here: [https://bitbucket.org/seanfarley/scienceports/src/2832e9d9716e178f20b5ab0eb5... MUMPS], [https://bitbucket.org/seanfarley/scienceports/src/2832e9d9716e178f20b5ab0eb5... ScaLAPACK], and (the now deprecated) [https://bitbucket.org/seanfarley/scienceports/src/2832e9d9716e178f20b5ab0eb5... BLACS]. I plan to add these ports once the multiplecompilers and mpi port groups are in trunk.
A word of warning: getting MUMPS to work in parallel requires ParMETIS and therefore a custom patch series (that I already [https://listes.ens- lyon.fr/sympa/arc/mumps-users/2011-11/msg00027.html wrote to the MUMPS team]) to get it to work with the new version of METIS. Also, I have some custom patches to get shared libraries working.
As far as I've seen, you have the parallel version of Mumps in the portfile, right? I'm personally more interested in the sequential version anyways. It is actually not quite clear to me, if a single build of Mumps can be used both in parallel or in sequential - in the end the difference is just that dummy mpi library libmpiseq. Still, in the FAQ they say that one must decide between a parallel or sequential installation, and also Debian has two distinct versions of the library - so this might seem the best strategy for macports, too. May I inquire in how far the multiplecompilers and mpi port groups you mention are of importance to Mumps, sclapack, etc.? As far as parmetis is concerned: Wouldn't it make sense anyways to keep a metis4 variant in macports? Many scentific programs use the old API, and although the changes are not big (i.e. patchable), it might be useful. Also, let me mention that I have good experiences with scotch and Mumps with scotch also already being in macports. Well, I probably digressed too much ;) In any case, what should we do now? Should I go ahead with the sequential Mumps version or wait for you? -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/40039#comment:4> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X