Matt, There are two things. (1) Generating one for a PETSc install that others can use and (2) using someone else's to build PETSc. to match the other package (say hypre already built)
I don't see why (1) is a bad idea. Certainly we will ALL WAYS test any other package we use with PETSc but can we not use the information in that packages pkgconfig to tell us what compiler to use etc.? Barry On Nov 1, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > Bah, the problem with pkgconfig is that it doesn't handle different versions > in different places well. We should use it in most cases, however. > > I disagree. There is only one way to be certain of a configure setting, and > that is to test it. This will only > produce more mail from idiots who move their installation, or copy the config > file, etc. There is no redeeming > value in this idea. > > Matt > > On Nov 1, 2012 2:41 PM, "Matthew Knepley" <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > Does, should, PETSc generate appropriate pkgconfig information for itself? > Does, can, it use that information from other packages? > > pkgconfig is too fragile to be of any use. > > Matt > > > Barry > > > > > -- > 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 > > > > -- > 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
