#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 sean@…): Replying to [comment:4 wimmer@…]:
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. [[BR]] They are the same.
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.
[[BR]] MUMPS only uses MPI code and loads a sequential version (libmpiseq) when using serial (as you note). I am against having two ports that do the same.
May I inquire in how far the multiplecompilers and mpi port groups you mention are of importance to Mumps, sclapack, etc.?
[[BR]] There is a discussion on the [https://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail /macports-dev/2013-July/023410.html macports dev list] about it that is (hopefully) winding down.
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.
[[BR]] The changes to get scientific programs using the new METIS 5 api (and 64 bit ints) is pretty trivial. I see no reason to keep an old version around since the patches to fix these packages (MUMPS, SuiteSparse, etc.) are small.
Also, let me mention that I have good experiences with scotch and Mumps with scotch also already being in macports.
[[BR]] Yes, I plan to unify all of this once the port groups are ironed out.
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?
[[BR]] I would very much like to wait on the port groups so that I can finish integrating all the scientific ports I've had in my own repo for a while now. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/40039#comment:5> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X