Bug#945983: transition: petsc

2019-12-21 Thread Drew Parsons
On 2019-12-21 20:43, Paul Gevers wrote: Hi Drew, On 20-12-2019 23:56, Drew Parsons wrote: ga will need a binNMU for scalapack too. Scheduled. Well huh. The ga build failed, go figure. I'll dig into it. Thanks Paul, Drew

Bug#945983: transition: petsc

2019-12-21 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Drew, On 20-12-2019 23:56, Drew Parsons wrote: > ga will need a binNMU for scalapack too. Scheduled. > To keep the static symbols consistent, nwchem should be rescheduled for > another binNMU once ga is rebuilt. Scheduled with an --extra-depends. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP d

Bug#945983: transition: petsc

2019-12-20 Thread Drew Parsons
On 2019-12-15 17:20, Paul Gevers wrote: Hi Drew, In that case in the spirit of a package deal, I suggest throwing in scalapack 2.1.0 as well. Go ahead. ga will need a binNMU for scalapack too. It gets missed in some transition lists since it provides static libraries, but it shows up in

Bug#945983: transition: petsc

2019-12-14 Thread Drew Parsons
On 2019-12-15 17:20, Paul Gevers wrote: In that case in the spirit of a package deal, I suggest throwing in scalapack 2.1.0 as well. Go ahead. Thanks Paul, proceeding. Drew

Bug#945983: transition: petsc

2019-12-14 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Drew, On 15-12-2019 07:07, Drew Parsons wrote: > Did I understand correctly you were in favour of lumping > the MUMPS transition in at the same time to get the stack updated all > together? Yes > In that case in the spirit of a package deal, I suggest > throwing in scalapack 2.1.0 as well. G

Bug#945983: transition: petsc

2019-12-14 Thread Drew Parsons
On 2019-12-14 20:40, Paul Gevers wrote: On 02-12-2019 09:31, Drew Parsons wrote: I'd like to proceed with the PETSc 3.12 transition. The MUMPS 5.2.1 is also ready to go, but I think it might be more constructive to demonstrate via testing migration that the new petsc is stable with the old mum

Processed: Re: Bug#945983: transition: petsc

2019-12-14 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing control commands: > tags -1 confirmed Bug #945983 [release.debian.org] transition: petsc Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 945983: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=945983 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#945983: transition: petsc

2019-12-14 Thread Paul Gevers
Control: tags -1 confirmed Hi Drew, On 05-12-2019 15:11, Drew Parsons wrote: > On 2019-12-05 20:22, Paul Gevers wrote: >> Hi Drew, >> >> On 02-12-2019 09:31, Drew Parsons wrote: >>> I'd like to proceed with the PETSc 3.12 transition. >>> >>> The MUMPS 5.2.1 is also ready to go, but I think it mig

Bug#945983: transition: petsc

2019-12-05 Thread Drew Parsons
On 2019-12-05 20:22, Paul Gevers wrote: Hi Drew, On 02-12-2019 09:31, Drew Parsons wrote: I'd like to proceed with the PETSc 3.12 transition. The MUMPS 5.2.1 is also ready to go, but I think it might be more constructive to demonstrate via testing migration that the new petsc is stable with th

Bug#945983: transition: petsc

2019-12-05 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Drew, On 02-12-2019 09:31, Drew Parsons wrote: > I'd like to proceed with the PETSc 3.12 transition. > > The MUMPS 5.2.1 is also ready to go, but I think it might be more > constructive to demonstrate via testing migration that the new petsc > is stable with the old mumps than to show the new

Bug#945983: transition: petsc

2019-12-02 Thread Drew Parsons
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition I'd like to proceed with the PETSc 3.12 transition. The MUMPS 5.2.1 is also ready to go, but I think it might be more constructive to demonstrate via testing migration that the new petsc