[SciPy-dev] SciPy improvements

Robert Cimrman cimrman3@ntc.zcu...
Fri Apr 13 05:59:33 CDT 2007


Robert Kern wrote:
> Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> 4) About the petsc - I know it's another dependence. However, I
>> noticed you are using umfpack in SciPy. So why not petsc? I think it
>> contains much more (sometimes better) solvers (depends on the
>> problem). It's seems logical to me, to either use nothing, or the best
>> library available, which I believe is petsc.
> 
> Well, I wasn't as much of a dependency/no-optional-features freak when the
> optional UMFPACK stuff went in. Also, IIRC the wrappers for UMFPACK were written
> specifically for scipy; they didn't exist as a separate package beforehand.
> petsc4py already exists. Unless if we decide that some other feature of scipy
> needs it, there is no reason that I can see for bringing it into the scipy package.

Yes, it was written specifically for scipy. Actually I was really
'forced' to write UMFPACK wrappers as at that time (long long ago) there
was not a fast enough direct sparse solver in scipy.

r.



More information about the Scipy-dev mailing list