2009/5/11 Giuseppe Ghib? <ghibo at mandriva.com> > Satish Balay wrote: > >> On Tue, 5 May 2009, Giuseppe Ghib? wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi. >>> >>> I'm trying to package petsc 2.3.3, >>> >>> >> >> Why package this older version? Current version is 3.0.0. >> >> >> > Because I've to use bundled with libmesh (http://libmesh.sourceforge.net) > and IIRC it talks only (or maybe advice don't remember exactly) about PetSC > 2.3.3 and not 3.0.0. > >> but I didn't understand the logic of some options, in particular for >>> umfpack. E.g. If I specify at the config stage: >>> >>> --with-umfpack-lib=[${_libdir}/libumfpack.a,${_libdir}/libamd.a] >>> >>> and the ${_libdir} path contains both shared and static libraries then >>> the linking command are expanded to: >>> >>> -lumfpack -Wl,-rpath,<path of petsc> -lamd >>> >>> Ditto if I specify: >>> >>> --with-umfpack-lib=[libumfpack.a] >>> >>> they are expanded to the two libs "-lumpack -lamd" (i.e. it guesses the >>> other lib "libamd" even if I don't specify). >>> >>> >> >> petsc-3.0.0 won't add the extra -lamd >> >> > > Currently this is not possible. Perhpas it will be if "-Lfoo -lbar" is >> supported. >> >> > well, IIRC I tried and didn't worked (and -L was not even needed because of > system-path), but maybe there could be added an extra behaviour (see my > previous mail) to let the user take full control about which libraries > should be passed to pass detecting tests.
This definitely works in the latest release. Matt > > Bye > Giuseppe. > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20090511/309fafbd/attachment.html>