On Nov 1, 2012, at 7:12 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> I think this is always a bad idea for the reasons I gave before, namely that
> due to the fragility it will
> break frequently, and we will get all the breakage on petsc-maint.
>
> 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.?
>
> I am not really against this. However, how would this work?
We take their information and (try to) use it with a PETSc build, then we
in our configure (as we do know) try to link in their library.
> It says one compiler in pkgconfig, but we have
> another from our config.
There won't be another one in our config since we are building with their
information!
> Are they the same? There is no simple way to tell. Are they compatible?
> Again, no
> simple test. Thus, it would always have to be what the user typed in already,
> so what are we saving?
We are allowing people to (automatically when it works) build a version of
PETSc that matches some package they already have installed. Yes this doesn't
solve all the problems of the world but it is a nice feature.
Barry
>
> Matt
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
