Lisandro, I understand. But we cannot have $PETSC_DIR/conf and $PETSC_DIR/$PETSC_ARCH/lib/petsc both directories have similar contents but very different types of names.
Barry On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Lisandro Dalcin wrote: > No, No, Barry... > > Sorry, I was not clear enough. I was thinking in having > > * In an 'install' directory > prefix/bin (generated executables) > prefix/include (all headers) [ Perhaps prefix/include/petsc? ] > prefix/lib ( all petsc *.a and *.so libs) > prefix/lib/petsc (all configuration, common and arch-specific) > > So if 'prefix' is '/usr' you do not generate a non standard > '/usr/conf' directory. > > * In an 'build' directory > $PETSC_DIR/bin > $PETSC_DIR/include (common headers) > $PETSC_DIR/conf (common config) > $PETSC_DIR/$PETSC_ARCH/bin (generated executables) > $PETSC_DIR/$PETSC_ARCH/include (arch-specific headers) > $PETSC_DIR/$PETSC_ARCH/lib (*.a and *.so libs) > $PETSC_DIR/$PETSC_ARCH/lib/petsc (arch-specific config) > > I think this approach retains some degree of symmetry between 'prefix' > and $PETSC_DIR, and uses a more standard layout in 'prefix' > > What do you think? > > > On 6/12/07, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > > Ok, so far we have > > > > prefix/conf > > prefix/lib/conf (or petscconf or petsc) > > prefix/etc/conf (or petscconf or petsc) > > prefix/share/conf (or petscconf or petsc > > > >
