On Wed, 19 May 2010 20:31:17 +0100 > On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 21:08 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 14:55:28 -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > > > > There are no open bugs against blacs-mpi, scalapack, or mumps. > > > > > > Any ideas on why they're still not transitioning? Is there an old > > > binary package blocking migration? > > > > > Looks that way. > > > > mumps (- to 4.9.2.dfsg-4) > > Maintainer: Adam C. Powell, IV > > 37 days old (needed 10 days) > > out of date on armel: libmumps-4.9.2, libmumps-dev, libmumps-seq-4.9.2, > > libmumps-seq-dev, mumps-test (from 4.9.2.dfsg-2) > > out of date on hppa: libmumps-4.9.2, libmumps-dev, libmumps-seq-4.9.2, > > libmumps-seq-dev, mumps-test (from 4.9.2.dfsg-2) > > out of date on mips: libmumps-4.9.2, libmumps-dev, libmumps-seq-4.9.2, > > libmumps-seq-dev, mumps-test (from 4.9.2.dfsg-2) > > out of date on sparc: libmumps-4.9.2, libmumps-dev, libmumps-seq-4.9.2, > > libmumps-seq-dev, mumps-test (from 4.9.2.dfsg-2) > > Not considered > > These all appear to be waiting for scotch, which FTBFS (#581381, which > Adam filed).
I see, so scotch and mumps have to transition along with blacs-mpi and scalapack? Hadn't thought that was the case since mumps has never been in testing. I uploaded a fix for scotch a few hours ago, so when that builds, mumps should build, then everything should go in ten days or so from today. Thanks for clearing that up. -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
