[MacPorts] #40039: New port: mumps 4.10.0 - a library for solving sparse linear systems

[MacPorts]

#40039: New port: mumps 4.10.0 - a library for solving sparse linear systems
-------------------------+--------------------------------
  Reporter:  wimmer@…    |      Owner:  macports-tickets@…
      Type:  submission  |     Status:  new
  Priority:  Normal      |  Milestone:
 Component:  ports       |    Version:  2.2.0
Resolution:              |   Keywords:
      Port:              |
-------------------------+--------------------------------

Comment (by wimmer@…):

 Replying to [comment:3 sean@…]:
 > MUMPS is a bit of a train wreck of a package but I'll comment that I
 already have MUMPS and its dependents here:
 [https://bitbucket.org/seanfarley/scienceports/src/2832e9d9716e178f20b5ab0eb563f40d7fcce730/math/mumps?at=default
 MUMPS],
 [https://bitbucket.org/seanfarley/scienceports/src/2832e9d9716e178f20b5ab0eb563f40d7fcce730/math/scalapack?at=default
 ScaLAPACK], and (the now deprecated)
 [https://bitbucket.org/seanfarley/scienceports/src/2832e9d9716e178f20b5ab0eb563f40d7fcce730/math/blacs?at=default
 BLACS]. I plan to add these ports once the multiplecompilers and mpi port
 groups are in trunk.
 >
 > A word of warning: getting MUMPS to work in parallel requires ParMETIS
 and therefore a custom patch series (that I already [https://listes.ens-
 lyon.fr/sympa/arc/mumps-users/2011-11/msg00027.html wrote to the MUMPS
 team]) to get it to work with the new version of METIS. Also, I have some
 custom patches to get shared libraries working.

 As far as I've seen, you have the parallel version of Mumps in the
 portfile, right? I'm personally more interested in the sequential version
 anyways.

 It is actually not quite clear to me, if a single build of Mumps can be
 used both in parallel or in sequential - in the end the difference is just
 that dummy mpi library libmpiseq. Still, in the FAQ they say that one must
 decide between a parallel or sequential installation, and also
 Debian has two distinct versions of the library - so this might seem the
 best strategy for macports, too.

 May I inquire in how far the multiplecompilers and mpi port groups you
 mention are of importance to Mumps, sclapack, etc.?

 As far as parmetis is concerned: Wouldn't it make sense anyways to keep a
 metis4 variant in macports? Many scentific programs use the old API, and
 although the changes are not big (i.e. patchable), it might be useful.
 Also, let me mention that I have good experiences with scotch and Mumps
 with scotch also already being in macports.

 Well, I probably digressed too much ;) In any case, what should we do now?
 Should I go ahead with the sequential Mumps version or wait for you?

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/40039#comment:4>
MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for OS X