Re: [petsc-dev] Scotch 6.0.8

> On Aug 28, 2019, at 3:30 AM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote: > > > > On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 06:26, Smith, Barry F. wrote: > > > > On Aug 27, 2019, at 3:22 AM, Lisandro Dalcin via petsc-dev > > wrote: > > > > There is a new scotch release. We should update configure to this version. > > I'm a

Re: [petsc-dev] Scotch 6.0.8

> On Aug 27, 2019, at 3:22 AM, Lisandro Dalcin via petsc-dev > wrote: > > There is a new scotch release. We should update configure to this version. > I'm a bit confused about the current status PTscotch.py in BuildSystem, it > seems to be using the scotch/master from the official repo. It

[petsc-dev] Scotch 6.0.8

There is a new scotch release. We should update configure to this version. I'm a bit confused about the current status PTscotch.py in BuildSystem, it seems to be using the scotch/master from the official repo. -- Lisandro Dalcin Research Scientist Extreme Computing Research Center (

Re: [petsc-dev] Scotch 6.0.1 unifies _esmumps versions

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, Jed Brown wrote: > Satish Balay writes: > > > Hm - should this go into maint? > > No, major behavioral differences should not be made in subminor > releases. > > I have no idea why SCOTCH decided to roll out major features and > ABI/linking changes in a subminor release.

Re: [petsc-dev] Scotch 6.0.1 unifies _esmumps versions

Satish Balay writes: > Hm - should this go into maint? No, major behavioral differences should not be made in subminor releases. I have no idea why SCOTCH decided to roll out major features and ABI/linking changes in a subminor release. signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [petsc-dev] Scotch 6.0.1 unifies _esmumps versions

ops - forgot to list the commit https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/commits/4875ef09651bdaec9821537d04529c5e45819f80 Satish On Sun, 15 Feb 2015, Satish Balay wrote: > Hm - should this go into maint? > > I get the following diff with testexamples_PTSCOTCH > > [I could update the output file with

Re: [petsc-dev] Scotch 6.0.1 unifies _esmumps versions

Hm - should this go into maint? I get the following diff with testexamples_PTSCOTCH [I could update the output file with the changed partitioning - assuming its correct. Matt?] I have my current changes in branch "balay/update-scotch_6.0.3/maint" Satish >>> testexamples_PTSCOTCH in: /

Re: [petsc-dev] Scotch 6.0.1 unifies _esmumps versions

Hello, Is there a reason why SCOTCH 6.0.0 is still downloaded by PETSc, while 6.0.3 is out and fixes an issue with MUMPS, cf. http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/2014-September/022795.html ? This simple patch

[petsc-dev] Scotch 6.0.1 unifies _esmumps versions

>From na-digest: > From: François Pellegrini francois.pellegr...@labri.fr > Date: September 20, 2014 > Subject: Revision 6.0.1 of Scotch is out > > We announce the release, as libre/free software, of revision 6.0.1 of > the SCOTCH and PT-SCOTCH software package and library for sequential > and pa

[petsc-dev] Scotch

El 21/08/2011, a las 19:53, Barry Smith escribi?: > > On Aug 21, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Jose E. Roman wrote: > >> >> Ok. I will take the opportunity to update the other partitioners. By the >> way, the interface to Jostle is broken. Jostle is not distributed in source >> code, so I would vote fo

[petsc-dev] Scotch

Ok. I will take the opportunity to update the other partitioners. By the way, the interface to Jostle is broken. Jostle is not distributed in source code, so I would vote for removing the interface. Any objection? Question: I used identifiers such as MP_PTSCOTCH_QUALITY as a shortcut of MATPAR

[petsc-dev] Scotch

On Aug 21, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Jose E. Roman wrote: > > Ok. I will take the opportunity to update the other partitioners. By the way, > the interface to Jostle is broken. Jostle is not distributed in source code, > so I would vote for removing the interface. Any objection? Yes, take Jostle o

[petsc-dev] Scotch

I have updated all the Scotch stuff to use the proper PTScotch names: --download-ptscotch -mat_partitioning_type ptscotch MatPartitioningSetType(p,MATPARTITIONINGPTSCOTCH) Scotch.py to PTScotch.py etc etc You will need to hg pull BuildSystem also. Barry On Aug 20,

[petsc-dev] Scotch

El 20/08/2011, a las 05:45, Barry Smith escribi?: > > Questions for anyone with knowledge on this subject: > > Are Scotch and ptscotch different packages? They are different libraries but are included in the same distribution file. The tarball contains both the serial and parallel ver

[petsc-dev] Scotch

I have rewritten the Scotch interface so that it can be used again as a MatPartitioning object. I have done limited testing, so please let me know if problems arise. The interface is really to PT-Scotch rather than serial Scotch. Some comments regarding configure's download-scotch option: - It

[petsc-dev] Scotch

Questions for anyone with knowledge on this subject: Are Scotch and ptscotch different packages? How come the download site has scotch_5.1.11.tar.gz and scotch_5.1.11_esmumps.tar.gz and neither mentions ptscotch do one or both of them contain ptscotch? Do either contain scotch?

[petsc-dev] Scotch has metis.h file; bad design

I forward to Francois Pellegrini. We take a look on that problem tomorrow, but I think you can automatically remove the metis files from scotch in PETSc without problems. Scotch uses them only to provide to users the Metis and ParMetis interface with the libraries libscotchmetis.a and libscotc

[petsc-dev] Scotch has metis.h file; bad design

On Jan 5, 2010, at 4:56 PM, Mathieu Faverge wrote: > I forward to Francois Pellegrini. > We take a look on that problem tomorrow, but I think you can > automatically remove the metis files from scotch in PETSc without > problems. Thanks for the suggestion, when PETSc installs Scotch it

[petsc-dev] Scotch has metis.h file; bad design

Scotch has a file called metis.h this is a big problem when automatic installers are installing both ParMetis and Scotch since automatic installers are not smart enough to read header file notes and figure out exactly what file to delete. I would have reported this as a bug to Scotch b