On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > On May 4, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Jed Brown 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) >> > > Absolutely. It does not belong in some centralized place; it belongs with > each chunk of code. > > In fact, could/should we move it into the source files directly and thus > not need a file with this meta-data at all. The python tool can just as > easily get it out of the source files then the makefile. (Currently there is > one copy of this data per directory, it is not per file; should we change it > to per file, I'm not sure.) Yes, definitely. I hate it in the makefiles. Matt > > > Barry > > > 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 >> > > -- 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/d8a11721/attachment.html>
