On Wed, 2018-07-18 at 13:52 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > Package: libpetsc-real3.9-dev > Version: 3.9.3+dfsg1-2 > > Dear Drew, > > On 17-07-18 13:20, Graham Inggs wrote: > > Hi Drew > > > > > On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Drew Parsons wrote: > > > > The configuration of ci.debian.org is not consistent. A > > > > failing test > > > > of deal.ii is marked on > > > > https://ci.debian.net/packages/d/deal.ii/testing/amd64/ > > > > as triggered by petsc/3.9.3+dfsg1-2, but the test log shows > > > > that in > > > > fact libpetsc-real3.8-dev is used for the test > > > > (i.e. petsc/3.8.4+dfsg1-2+b2). So unsurprisingly the test > > > > fails, which > > > > disrupts migration of the new petsc 3.9 (throwing it out to 10 > > > > days > > > > instead of 5). The failure itself occurs since the different > > > > petsc were > > > > built against different openmpi. > > > From the times in the logs, it appears that the test was run > > > before > > > > deal.ii's binNMU happened [1]. > > So the delay is only temporary. > > > > As soon as the test is successful, the migration delay will > > disappear. > > > > I've requested a retry for that test, so it should happen soon. > > Although Graham was right with his timing regarding binNMU of > deal.ii, > there is more going on. I really don't want to offend you, but I > wonder > if you read the actual error message carefully? (It took Graham and > me > quite some time to figure this out and to understand it). > > ''' > PETSc was configured with one OpenMPI mpi.h version but now appears > to > be compiling using a different OpenMPI mpi.h version > ''' > > This message comes from petsc, so, whatever header file got installed > was blessed by petsc. > > Apart from petsc/3.8.4+dfsg1-2+b2 also petsc/3.9.3+dfsg1-2 packages > were > installed (so both of them), so I think the trigger did it's job. > > I believe that the current failure is really pointing at a bug in the > dependencies of libpetsc-real3.9-dev which probably need tighter > restrictions on libopenmpi-dev looking at the message. If > libpetsc-real3.9-dev would require libopenmpi-dev from unstable, I > believe everything would be all right. I'll trigger a test like the > one > that currently fails, but with libopenmpi-dev from unstable to prove > my > hypothesis.
Thanks for the extra analysis Paul. You're right, I picked up on the appearance of petsc 3.8 in the failing tests but actually petsc 3.9 is installed there too (which is a bit weird). In regards to the petsc/openmpi dependency, we've already addressed that. It used to depend on the subminor release version, we've relaxed it to match major.minor https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/commits/ca70f86ee9db8e69523e0e69f12289c6cab9b4cb . That relationship is expressed in the libpetsc-real3.9-dev dependency, libopenmpi-dev (>= 3.1), and that's for both libpetsc-real3.8-dev and libpetsc-real3.9-dev at the moment. OpenMPI was libopenmpi-dev 3.1.0-7 in the failing deal.ii tests, and libopenmpi-dev 3.1.1.real-3 in the successful tests. Either way that's still openmpi 3.1, so is supposed to be compatible. So looks like you're right, there may be a PETSc bug when it tests for mpi compatibility. openmpi 3.1.0 and 3.1.1. are both supposed to be fine, they should not be triggering the incompatibility warning. Drew
