Re: [deal.II] Installation error using Ubuntu 17.10 package (missing libsmumps.so)

Status update: - We missed the opportunity to do a rebuild for 17.10 [1] - In the upcoming 18.04 release everything should be fine again (release should be at the end of this month). Best, Matthias [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/deal.ii/+bug/1729454 -- The deal.II project i

Re: [deal.II] Installation error using Ubuntu 17.10 package (missing libsmumps.so)

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, at 14:48 CDT, Stephen DeWitt wrote: > Hi Matthias, > Ok, that makes sense. > > I think I have both libdeal.ii and libdeal.ii-dev, at least that's what > apt-get tells me if I try to install libdeal.ii-dev seperately, although I > haven't figured out how to use the dev ve

Re: [deal.II] Installation error using Ubuntu 17.10 package (missing libsmumps.so)

Hi Matthias, Ok, that makes sense. I think I have both libdeal.ii and libdeal.ii-dev, at least that's what apt-get tells me if I try to install libdeal.ii-dev seperately, although I haven't figured out how to use the dev version rather than the auto-detected release version. Thanks, Steve On

Re: [deal.II] Installation error using Ubuntu 17.10 package (missing libsmumps.so)

Hi there, The problem is that deal.II's CMake system records the full link interface of all shared libraries - if a library changes location the package has to be rebuild (in Ubuntu). If this is indeed the case I will ask for this to happen. Did you install just the library libdeal.ii, or also th

[deal.II] Installation error using Ubuntu 17.10 package (missing libsmumps.so)

Hello all, A PRISMS-PF user recently posted to our forum that he was having an issue with the deal.ii package he got through apt-get on Ubuntu 17.10. The issue seems to be related to a missing shared object file for MUMPS. I

[deal.II] Re: Different time steps lead to different asymptotic values for the residual in a heat equation

After further tests I noticed: -> The calculation also has problems if the boundary is equal to the initial values, i.e. the gradients should be 0 everywhere -> The time step size is not the reason for the behaviour, the calculation goes through without any problem if I neglect the gradients (d_t