[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ongoing slepc/petsc transition

Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@debian.org> (26/01/2012):
> On Tue, 2012-01-24 at 00:51 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > That means one “OK-able” package, one “oops-broken-for-a-long-while”
> > package, and several “unknown-status” packages. To keep everyone as
> > testing candidates until this transition is ready, maybe re-uploading
> > petsc 3.1 would do the trick? (Either with an epoch or with the
> > 3.2-is-really-3.1-like dirty version.) This way, all packages can stay
> > in testing and be updated through unstable w/o having to be entangled?
> I think we're closer than that, we've been active for the past couple of
> weeks to make this happen.  The only unknown at this point is feel++.
> Stuff to do looks like:
>       * Upload a new petsc to fix some bugs (me, probably today)
>       * Upload a new slepc with a tiny patch to add a header file (me,
>         probably today)
>       * Upload mpich2 from alioth to fix an RC bug (me, today or
>         tomorrow)
>       * Update to deal.II 7.1.0 (me, within a week)
>       * Patch gmsh to work with petsc/slepc 3.2 (Christophe Trophime
>         with my help, probably within a week)
>       * Update DOLFIN (Johannes Ring, within a week)
>       * Test/update feel++ (?? If nobody else I'll take a stab at it)

Only in unstable anyway, so it can migrate later AFAICT.

>       * Remove illuminator from testing (release team)

dak rm seems happy with it, so it can be hinted out when the rest is

>       * Close the RC bug against mpi-defaults (which is pointless anyway
>         because it transitioned just before I filed it, I'll do this
>         today)
> It looks like there's a clear path to success, and this can all happen
> within a week or two, then we can transition a bunch of stuff at once
> including HDF5.  Otherwise we're stuck trying to do two transitions
> which will take at least 4 weeks...

This looks much better than my previous summary. :) And thanks for the


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: