On Jun 1, 2010, at 4:57 AM, Jed Brown wrote: > On Mon, 31 May 2010 19:13:07 -0500, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> >> You have an awful lot of confidence in cmake. I have no problem at >> all setting up a system where PETSc can use cmake, that's great. But I >> don't want PETSc to ever be in a position of not being able to do >> something because kitware/whatever decided that they no longer or >> would not supported xyz or we have to wait six months for them to >> "port" to a "new system". > > This is legitimate and obscure hardware/compilers is a big reason why > CMake has no business being the only build system for PETSc. Given > make's failings on Windows or whatever, maybe builder.py will be able to > fill the role of canonical build system. > > But in the world of IDE integration, I think they are way ahead because > quite a number of IDEs have written explicit support for CMake, in the > sense that you just point it to the project root and a set of build > directories and automatically get proper source analysis (including > correct macro expansion when you switch "PETSC_ARCH" from the menu), all > the relevant build targets, debug profiles, etc. Since most IDEs have > already "bought in", I think it is a reasonable language for talking to > them, and suspect that direct PETSc/BuildSystem -> IDE-X links will be > unnecessary.
Cool. I guess you need to stick your previous email into the appropriate documentation in PETSc. Would this be in the users manual, a separate web-age, something else? Then a couple of us can be guinea pigs and try to use it with xcode and eclipse. Barry > > Jed
