On 17 February 2010 12:00, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: > I am for a separate mpiuni that get downloaded. I think this makes more > sense with > our other packages concepts, and is more modular. We can reuse so much more > of > configure as well.
I still fail to see the pros of having a separate mpiuni. I think you have to put on user's side when taking a decision about this. Are FINAL USERS going to have any benefits for having mpiuni as a separate download and having to pass a separate library in when invoking the linker? If a user wants no-MPI, Is there any other fake-mpi alternative supported in PETSc? If the answer is no, so then why bother people with a separate download? -- Lisandro Dalcin --------------- Centro Internacional de M?todos Computacionales en Ingenier?a (CIMEC) Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnol?gico para la Industria Qu?mica (INTEC) Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cient?ficas y T?cnicas (CONICET) PTLC - G?emes 3450, (3000) Santa Fe, Argentina Tel/Fax: +54-(0)342-451.1594
