dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 04:50:33PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> On 22 September 2011 12:46, Johannes Ring <johannr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Johannes Ring <johannr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Garth N. Wells <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On 21 September 2011 11:55, Johannes Ring <johannr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Garth N. Wells <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>> On 21 September 2011 11:06, Johannes Ring <johannr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Garth N. Wells <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>> A while ago, we used some Boost MPI but then removed it because of
> >>>>>>> some older systems lack support. Could we start using it now? I would
> >>>>>>> like to. It would make some parallel things a lot simpler. Would the
> >>>>>>> buildbots need to be updated?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, some of them would need an update. Also, we would no longer be
> >>>>>> able to provide packages for Ubuntu 10.04 LTS, which is by far the
> >>>>>> Ubuntu version with the most downloads from the PPA.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK, so the decision is whether or not to continue support for 10.04.
> >>>>> Since I don't use 10.04 but I do use MPI, I vote for ditching 10.04
> >>>>> and using Boost MPI. A compromise would be to use Boost MPI, and not
> >>>>> provide parallel support in the 10.04 package.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How do we deal with Swig 2 in 10.04? Or is it not required since the
> >>>>> wrappers have already been generated?
> >>>>
> >>>> I have backported SWIG 2.0 to Lucid.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> OK,  what about backporting Boost too? There are a few PPAs already, e.g.
> >>>
> >>>   https://launchpad.net/~infie/+archive/boost-1.47
> >>>   https://launchpad.net/~gezakovacs/+archive/boost
> >>
> >> Yes, I will try to backport Boost in my test PPA
> >> (https://launchpad.net/~johannr/+archive/test-ppa). I am just afraid
> >> that it will break some of the other packages that depends on the
> >> older Boost, but I will give it a shot.
> >
> > It seems to work out nicely. I only had to rebuild UFC against the new
> > Boost packages and then everything ran smoothly.
> >
> > It will require some work on the buildbots if we start using Boost MPI.
> >
>
> Does anyone else want to throw in an opinion on this?

ok for me. Is the plan to keep the MPI:: utility functions and replace
the implementation by boost? Or will we be using boost throughout? In
particular, does it have a replacement for MPI::distribute?

--
Anders