[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: petsc-dev directory structure questions


   Matt,

This is a rational for the current set up (or perhaps more a rationalization :-))
The reason for merging is for others attempting to understand our
system; all the little complications add up to a system that is overwhelming
to other people so in my mind anything that reduces the complications is
good thing (so long as it doesn't screw up other things).

  Does anyone else have comments?

   Barry


On Dec 9, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote:

I am cool with the division because

 1) config is for configuration tools explicitly

 2) conf is for things that customize the build

They have completely different things in them, and I do not see that we
need to merge them.

  Thanks,

    Matt

On Dec 8, 2007 10:13 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 

   Currently petsc-dev has the subdirectories

     bin include src conf config ...

$PETSC_ARCH has the subdirectories

   bin include conf lib ...

conf has

adic.init adicmf.init base test
adicmastercontrol adicmfb.init rules variables

config has

   PETSc BuildSystem configure.py   +tons of sample configure.py
files for different systems

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 I find that having both a conf and a config directory is confusing
and unneeded and propose:

1) merging the config and conf directory
2) putting the ons of sample configure.py files for different systems
into a subdirectory called samples

Questions:

1) Does this make sense?

2) What should the directory be called? conf or config? Are there any
standards that dictate/suggest
    one over the other? If we use config then I would like to change
the $PETSC_ARCH/conf directory
    to match it, but would that violate some standard? I'm inclined
to go with conf even though that breaks
    our long standing config/configure.py script to become conf/
configure.py

3) This is perhaps also a good time to reopen the question of PETSc
"installs": currently they go into
    (system independent) prefix/bin prefix/include prefix/conf and
the system dependent prefix/$PETSC_ARCH/conf
    prefix/$PETSC_ARCH/include prefix/$PETSC_ARCH/lib If one selects
a PETSC_ARCH of "" then
    everything ends up in prefix/bin prefix/include prefix/conf
prefix/lib.

   The reason for this design is so that the same makefiles with
includes based on PETSC_DIR and
   PETSC_ARCH will work in all three cases: no install of PETSc,
install with PETSC_ARCH and install with
   PETSC_ARCH ""

   I know we will never get full agreement on everything, but what
are the concerns with this layout?


   Thanks

     Barry

Remember if I don't get comments I may do some crazy thing :-(






--
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which
their experiments lead.
-- Norbert Wiener