On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 15:34, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Which breaks things that bake in the install directory name. And some >> packages have a workaround >> and some don't, which is again a less than robust way to operate and I >> think will create more headaches >> than it solves. >> > > Every package that has ever been packaged for a distro has been shoehorned > into this model. There are ways to trick actively hostile packages. DESTDIR > is available for most packages, especially those that hard-code the > destination directory. This is a problem that so many other people have > solved that it's foolish to say it's unworkable. > I did not say unworkable, I just said unmanageable. Distros have LOTS of manpower compared to PETSc and often employ strategies that cater to this strength. We can't. I do not consider what has been done as "solutions". Matt -- 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/20110830/e364d1c1/attachment.html>
