On Jun 28, 2013, at 11:55 AM, Satish Balay <ba...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Barry Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 27, 2013, at 8:46 PM, "Timothy J. Tautges" <taut...@mcs.anl.gov>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been mulling whether by default petsc should point to a release
>>> tarball anyway, I think it should (4.6 being the latest).
>>
>> PETSc releases should point to moab releases. But PETSc-dev should point to
>> moab-dev
>
> This kind of switch adds extra complexity -
Come on, it cannot be that hard.
> and not needed unless moab
> and petsc codes are intertwined and released simultaneously.
>
> Do we really need to track moab-dev?
Yes, petsc-dev must track moab-dev!
In the same way that slepc-dev needs to track petsc-dev
Barry
>
>
> Also the git stuff [instead of just tarballs is adding extra
> complexity [which is also breaking some current functionality - like
> --download-package=url]
>
> Its not clear to me if we really need to track the git repos of
> external packages.
>
> Satish
