On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:44:07 -0500 (CDT), Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Sean Farley wrote: > > > > > > > I guess DESTDIR is useful for packaging PETSc? [perhaps rpm or > > > equivalent?] Is that what you are trying to do? > > > > > > Yes, this is a pet project of mine for os x and, potentially, rpms or > > something similar, though I haven't looked into other packaging systems. > > Ok - I'll look at it. Perhaps its a simple change.
Distros heavily discourage RPATH installs. This makes sense when installing to /usr or /usr/local (which they usually mandate), but not at all when installing to a non-standard path. Supporting both RPATH and non-RPATH installs adds some build system complication. This relates to something that has been on my mind for a while: in the interest of making PETSc more accessible from external packages that do not want to use PETSc's makefiles, I suggest having a petsc-config that offers compilation and linking flags, including shared libs (no recursive dependencies), static libs, and RPATH/non-RPATH linking. I would use pkgconfig for this except that pkgconfig is bad at handling multiple installs, so a stand-alone petsc-config written in Python seems like the natural candidate. Jed
