Re: petsc-dev directory structure questions

[Barry Smith <bsmith@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 14, 2007, at 12:05 PM, Satish Balay wrote:

> On further thought, I'm ok with merging conf and config - provided
> 'config' [which would be the new merged name for conf]

   Why config instead of conf?

> would not have
> any of the old $PETSC_DIR/python stuff. [i,e if it goes somewere into
> $PETSC_DIR/src/foobar]

   Why should it go somewhere else; it manages all the configuration
so it should be with the configuration stuff.

   src traditional means code that gets compiled up and put in a
library or executable: the old PETSC_DIR/python stuff definitely
does not fit in that category.

> We currently have generated files anyway at
> PETSC_ARCH/conf/[configure.py,petscconf,petscrules], so I guess
> PETSC_DIR/config/[configure.py,linux-gnu.py,base,rules,..]  should be
> equivalent.

  Having PETSC_DIR/config/variables,rules but
PETSC_ARCH/conf/petscconf seems VERY wrong to me. Why is
one directory config and the other one conf?

   Barry

> With this, the curent user interface of ./config/configure.py
> ./config/linux-gnu.py would be unchanged.
>
> Satish
>
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Satish Balay wrote:
>
> > I guess my thoughts in the previous e-mail were all over the place -
> > so here is an attempt to get something consistant out.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > <Barry>
> >
> > 2) putting the ons of sample configure.py files for different systems
> > into a subdirectory called samples
> >
> > <Richard>
> > A much more descriptive name for the 'config' directory would be
> > something like 'BuildScripts'.
> >
> > <Lisandro>
> > * I'm on Richard's side. I believe all the build scripts in 'config'
> > should be placed in other location, let say 'maint/BuildScripts/'.
> >
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> > One issue here is - when you refer to scripts in config - are you
> > refering to things like just 'linux-gnu.py' or both configure.py &
> > linux-gnu.py.
> >
> > ** In the current design _both_ scripts are equivalent [wrt user
> > invocation]. Hence in the same location. **
> >
> > <option1>
> > So the current porposal of PETSC_DIR/BuildScripts & PETSC_DIR/config
> > is _exaclty_ the same organization as what we had before [with
> > PETSC_DIR/config & PETSC_DIR/python], with dirs being renamed.
> > PETSC_DIR/python could have aswell be moved to PETSC_DIR/src/foobar
> > [and it would still be consistant to me].
> >
> > Issue: Woud user now invoke ./BuildScripts/configure.py?
> >
> > <option2>
> > However if the intent is to splitup configure.py & linux-gnu.py, the
> > organization avaliable is: PETSC_DIR/configure.py, PETSC_DIR/config,
> > and PETSC_DIR/BuildScripts.
> >
> > *****
> > With the above two options , Barrys primary concern with eliminating
> > one of 'conf' and 'config' is not resolved. [only better renaming is
> > done, with a cost of different ueser interface with ./configure.py  
> > and
> > ./BuildScripts/linux-gnu.py]
> > ******
> >
> > <option2A>
> > Now move PETSC_DIR/config to PETSC_DIR/src/config-foobar. This  
> > removes
> > one dir from PETSC_DIR [however BuildScripts & conf, configure.py
> > still remain]
> >
> > <options2B>
> > Also move PETSC_DIR/BuildScripts to PETSC_DIR/maint/BuildScripts.
> > However with this approach [as we don't distribute 'maint' to users,
> > this would be loss in usr functionality.
> >
> > We are attempting all of this reorganization just because the name
> > 'conf' is too close to 'config'. [And I fear we might break more than
> > what we are fixing]
> >
> > Satish