On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Jed Brown <jed at 59a2.org> wrote: > 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). >
It looks like tup only has a Linux daemon, so it would run the same as make everywhere else. That does not seem like a strong enough case to use it. Why not just write the same thing in portable Python? We do need to run everywhere. Matt > Jed > > [1] For those who not in the know: http://gittup.org/tup/make_vs_tup.html -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20100504/70fac1d7/attachment.html>
