Run ./bin/TOPSInstaller.py -- the next generation of this should be a javascript gui beasty that runs in your browser.
Regarding the ./configure; make model. If we didn't have this all the gnu/linux bigots would give us a hard time (which they do already). In other words, it is what most people expect. Barry On Jun 21, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Andrew Knyazev wrote: > On 06/21/2011 01:29 PM, Barry Smith wrote: >> >> On Jun 21, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Andrew Knyazev wrote: >> >>> On 06/21/2011 12:24 PM, Jose E. Roman wrote: >>>>> SLEPc has the headers not in the same directory as PETSc? Why? >>>> SLEPc could be installed by a user that does not have write permission in >>>> PETSc's directory. >>> >>> PETSc gives so many different configure options, so it is quite rare to >>> see it installed by a sysadmin nowadays, in my experience. >>> >>> At any rate, it would be nice to have a tighter integration of SLEPc >>> into PETsc, ideally, simply to be able to install SLEPSc by using >>> --download-slepsc=1 option in PETSc. I am sure that it would >>> significanly increase the number of SLPEc users. >> >> >> To do this we need to broaden our Packages concept to have both pre and >> post packages. Currently we handle pre packages (that PETSc uses) pretty >> well but do not handle post packages (that use PETSc). Prometheus is this >> weird thing that is partially pre and partially post and is handled a bit >> too ad hocly. >> >> In some ways post packages are pretty easy, we just need to set up the >> infrastructure. >> >> Since the user doesn't care about pre and post we'd want to support the >> same --download-xxx syntax in both cases (with some way of passing optional >> arguments) and, of course, as Jed points out additional -download-xxx can be >> used after a build. >> >> Barry > > > For the user, could you perhaps add a new script "install" which would > just do everything: configure, make PETSc, install PETSc, and all > necessary pre and post packages, plus compile all examples? I could > never understand why PETSc requires the user to type "make" separately > and then also compile every individual example. > > Of course, typing "make" gives the user a false feeling that they know > and control what they are doing. But this feeling goes away quickly, and > the moral value of these few high moments is not that great anyway.
