On Sep 8, 2011, at 4:19 AM, Jed Brown wrote: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 00:34, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > Hmm, why? I believe the decision was that those dependent packages where > told to fix themselves to use the latest ParMetis and until then they are not > usuable from PETSc. Are we going to fix SuperLU_Dist, UMFPACK, MUMPS, etc > etc. all ourselves to work with the latest Parmetis. That is a > downstream?/upstream? problem not ours. > > I agree, but perhaps we should (oh my!) support both versions for a bit.
Very amusing joke, you have such a wild sense of humor to even consider such absurdity :-) Barry
