[petsc-users] macport and petsc

[Barry Smith]

On Apr 24, 2013, at 10:29 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013, Barry Smith wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Apr 24, 2013, at 10:00 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>> 
>>> compressed logs to petsc-users/petsc-dev is acceptable now.
>>> 
>>> [not sure if autocompression of attachments can be setup with mailmain
>>> mailing lists]
>>> 
>>> macports has some conflicts with the default blas/lapack - so its best
>>> to avoid it. [you can use --download-openmpi to get non-macports mpi]
>> 
>>   Satish,
>> 
>>   We should fix the PETSc BLAS/LAPACK configuration (BuildSystem) to not "have conflicts with macports blas/lapack" by, for example, to use the Apple BLAS/LAPACK if the macports one fail. That is, we shouldn't tell people not to use macports, we should have a configuration system robust enough to handle macports problems. Is this a problem we can reproduce? and hence debug? and hence fix?
> 
> I don't remember the exact issue. [a configure.log for this failure
> can perhaps refresh our memories]
> 
> One way a conflicts creep in is - with non-blas-lapack packages that a
> user might specify from macports.
> 
> For ex: configure check for blas/lapack from system location succeeds.
> Next when configure checks the other package from macports location -
> the blas from macports gets picked up and fails.
> 
> i.e
> "gcc -lblas" works.
> "gcc -L/opt/macports/lib -lotherpackage -lblas" fails..

   Unix and Buildsystem suck :-). 

    Why does the macports blas fail? Why are they delivering an incomplete blas?

   Barry


> 
> Satish