On Tue, 4 May 2010 11:37:14 -0500, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: > I see. Yes, it currently uses the makefile organization. This is the > kind of metadata that Barry would like in a DB rather than in > makefiles.
It would be easy to convert between being spread out in the makefiles and being held in some central location. For instance, something like builder.py, run at the end of configuration time, could instead of building the project, write a single tupfile [1] for all of PETSc, and then we could rejoice with fast correct builds, even after reconfiguring. I think the metadata itself belongs with the implementations (more or less where it is currently) unless we are actually working with an image-based system (which does not look likely in the near future). Jed [1] For those who not in the know: http://gittup.org/tup/make_vs_tup.html
