(address . guix-patches@gnu.org)
05FF909D-8B6E-4C5E-A26B-4A01BEA70FC1@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr
Hello,
the attached file add packages for scotch and pt-scotch that install shared libraries for both of them.
[PATCH] add pt-scotch-shared/scotch-shared
- Done
Details
- 4 participants
- Franck Pérignon
- Eric Bavier
- Leo Famulari
- Ludovic Courtès
- Owner
- unassigned
- Submitted by
- Franck Pérignon
- Severity
- normal
F
L
Re: [bug#47619] [PATCH] add pt-scotch-shared/scotch-shared
(name . Franck Pérignon)(address . Franck.Perignon@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr)(address . 47619-done@debbugs.gnu.org)
YGygaWrrIM8SJcRY@jasmine.lan
On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 01:22:37PM +0200, Franck P�rignon wrote:
Toggle quote (4 lines)
> Hello,
>
> the attached file add packages for scotch and pt-scotch that install shared libraries for both of them.
Thanks! I shortened the synopsis of pt-scotch-shared, to satisfy `guix
lint`, and pushed as 5fd046cbfd73ac178c02c503f3d8e2104a929e52.
Closed
L
Re: bug#47619: [PATCH] add pt-scotch-shared/scotch-shared
(name . Franck Pérignon)(address . Franck.Perignon@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr)
87zgy9dywm.fsf@gnu.org
Hello,
Franck Pérignon <Franck.Perignon@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr> skribis:
Toggle quote (12 lines)
> +(define-public scotch-shared
> + (package (inherit scotch)
> + (name "scotch-shared")
> + (native-inputs
> + `(("gcc" ,gcc)
> + ("flex" ,flex)
> + ("bison" ,bison)))
> + (arguments
> + (substitute-keyword-arguments (package-arguments scotch)
> + ((#:phases scotch-shared-phases)
> + `(modify-phases ,scotch-shared-phases
Thanks for the packages, Franck!
I was wondering whether we should provide exclusively shared libraries,
as we do for other packages, instead of keeping ‘scotch’ and
‘scotch-shared’. Thoughts?
(If we do keep both, the naming convention so far is the opposite: ‘foo’
and ‘foo-static’.)
Thanks,
Ludo’.
E
db52ab439fed6f1e76ca8b921b461a3964af3f9b.camel@posteo.net
On Thu, 2021-04-08 at 09:21 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Toggle quote (5 lines)
> Hello,
> I was wondering whether we should provide exclusively shared libraries,
> as we do for other packages, instead of keeping ‘scotch’ and
> ‘scotch-shared’. Thoughts?
I know in the past many in the HPC realm have wanted to have static
libraries available, to avoid the costs associated with start-up
linking and global function table indirection.
Some current developments, such as some HPC system vendors moving to
support only shared libraries on future systems, suggests that this
preference might be waning.
my 2-cents,
`~Eric
L
(name . Eric Bavier)(address . bavier@posteo.net)
878s5q31ez.fsf@gnu.org
Hi,
Eric Bavier <bavier@posteo.net> skribis:
Toggle quote (14 lines)
> On Thu, 2021-04-08 at 09:21 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I was wondering whether we should provide exclusively shared libraries,
>> as we do for other packages, instead of keeping ‘scotch’ and
>> ‘scotch-shared’. Thoughts?
>
> I know in the past many in the HPC realm have wanted to have static
> libraries available, to avoid the costs associated with start-up
> linking and global function table indirection.
>
> Some current developments, such as some HPC system vendors moving to
> support only shared libraries on future systems, suggests that this
> preference might be waning.
Yeah, I doubt this preference is justified, I feel it’s more one of
these cultural things. But yeah, let’s keep both for now.
Would it make sense to rename “scotch” to “scotch-static” and
“scotch-shared” to “scotch”, for consistency?
Ludo’.
?