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

Re: Bug#704782: trilinos: new package for Trilinos 11.x



> How is Nico able to build his PPA then?

I'm building with the sources from master, perhaps that's the reason why.

> I'm just comparing how the old (10.0.4.dsfg-1.1) package was built in
> Debian.  The old packaging produced 5 binary packages, your new
> packaging produces 94!
> Is this really necessary?

The structure of Trilinos is much better reflected by this many packages than it was with 5. In many ways, Trilinos works like Boost, particularly in that it is essentially a collection of "packages". I didn't see a disadvantage in having many packages either. Perhaps that presents a problem somewhere?

--Nico

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:46 PM Graham Inggs <ginggs@debian.org> wrote:
On 22/09/2015 14:18, Felix Salfelder wrote:
> it should be there, but I had to repair the pristine-tar branch once
> more. it's not required for the binary package build, (-b if you use
> dpkg-buildpackage).

I just use 'debuild -us -uc' which does require a source tarball.

>> I downloaded trilinos-12.2.1-Source.tar.bz2 (md5sum
>> 760f14cbce482b4b9a41d1c18297b531) and tried to build against it.
>> I received many errors about unrepresentable changes.
>
> the checksum is OK. i have just pushed it once again (sorry).

I see the pristine-tar data now, thanks.

>> I then tried unpacking the source tarball and copying over the
>> debian directory from git.  The build ran for about an hour then
>> failed while installing with a message about being unable to find
>> packages/panzer.
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>
> disable panzer (also remove from LIB_PACKAGES in d/r).
> maybe use fakeroot debian/rules binary to continue the build.
>
> fwiw, i have started an attempt to build version 11. it's in the
> "master-11" branch. 12 did not work at all, eventually because it did
> not find libmumps headers which are not part of mumps 4.10.

How is Nico able to build his PPA then?

I'm just comparing how the old (10.0.4.dsfg-1.1) package was built in
Debian.  The old packaging produced 5 binary packages, your new
packaging produces 94!
Is this really necessary?


Reply to: