[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 sean@…):

 Replying to [comment:4 wimmer@…]:
 >
 > 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.

 [[BR]]
 They are the same.

 > 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.

 [[BR]]
 MUMPS only uses MPI code and loads a sequential version (libmpiseq) when
 using serial (as you note). I am against having two ports that do the
 same.

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

 [[BR]]
 There is a discussion on the [https://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail
 /macports-dev/2013-July/023410.html macports dev list] about it that is
 (hopefully) winding down.

 > 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.

 [[BR]]
 The changes to get scientific programs using the new METIS 5 api (and 64
 bit ints) is pretty trivial. I see no reason to keep an old version around
 since the patches to fix these packages (MUMPS, SuiteSparse, etc.) are
 small.

 > Also, let me mention that I have good experiences with scotch and Mumps
 with scotch also already being in macports.

 [[BR]]
 Yes, I plan to unify all of this once the port groups are ironed out.

 > 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?

 [[BR]]
 I would very much like to wait on the port groups so that I can finish
 integrating all the scientific ports I've had in my own repo for a while
 now.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/40039#comment:5>
MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for OS X