Re: PetSc

[Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@mit.edu>]

Junichi Uekawa wrote:

> In Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:24:57 -0500 Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@mit.edu> cum veritate scripsit :
>
> Hello,
>
> first point:
>  it is possible to build mpich's MPE library with LAM. ( I don't know how
> debian lam would handle that tho'... need to include mpich source into
> lam -- doesn't sound very good. Camm, is it done ?)

Cool!  If that goes into the Debian lam package I'll try to support it.

> second point:
>  I think you can actually try playing around with update-alternatives.
>
> You could build-depend on mpich and lam, and build two versions playing
> around with update-alternatives. (theoretically)
> Not that I've tried.

Sure, but debian/rules would have to build the first set of packages, change some of the config
files, and build the second set of packages.  Or it could somehow store the lam and mpich build
trees separately, though that's really not supported in upstream's build scheme (which is
primitive compared to autoconf/automake/libtool).  Not impossible, but a bit of work.

It already builds everything three times: for optimized static libs, optimized shared libs, and
debugging static libs, all for one set of packages, something like gtk+1.2 (about the same size
too); this would double that.

> For performance of mpich and lam, I cannot comment on that.

I've heard rumors of lam's advantages, but nothing convincing.

Thanks,

-Adam P.

                      Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!