Derek Gaston <fried...@gmail.com> writes: > Or: like I said earlier, maybe we just maintain two systems. PETSc has had > several different build systems all at the same time because developers > wanted different things.
It's important to note that all build systems have used the same underlying specification. The GNU make and CMake systems both use/used a generator script that read the file lists from legacy makefiles. We've ditched CMake and are phasing out the legacy makefiles because GNU make is so much faster, more reliable, and less code. I'm with Paul that out-of-source builds are essential, but it isn't hard to put build products in a directory of the user's choosing (a la PETSC_ARCH). I have 35 PETSC_ARCHes at the moment and I appreciate being able to switch between them and update builds in a couple seconds. > It definitely could be true that a really simple pure Make system for > everyone that doesn't need the fancy features of Automake and then > Automake for Roy and Paul might be the way to go. The hard part is _not_ make (unless you absolutely need to work with the intersection of GNU and BSD makes). Configuration is hard and all solutions are terrible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Libmesh-devel mailing list Libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
