Even petscdiff should not be installed in the bin location, it should be
moved to a more appropriate place for the test suite.
Frankly the brew folks are right, we are nuts to install all this crap in
the prefix/bin location. I don't think we need to/should install anything in
> On Feb 23, 2018, at 2:36 PM, Balay, Satish <ba...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> $ ls |cat
> I guess most of them are not needed - and whats needed can perhaps be somehow
> The new testsuite tries to use 'petscdiff' above.
> And old makefiles try to use 'petscnagupgrade.py' - which is not appropriate
> for distributions anyway [but requires a patch to disable]
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2018, Smith, Barry F. wrote:
>> I am getting into this thread a little late. What is, exactly, what we
>> need to change with ./configure ; make ; make install to make the PETSc
>> "upstream installation" not a mess? Are we simply over installing stuff?
>> (This could be). Is it the optional dependency handling?
>> In bin we have
>> petsc_gen_xdmf.py, PetscBinaryIO.py
>> PetscBinaryIOTrajectory.py that probably belong elsewhere.
>> You should feel free to make branches that move this kind of stuff to more
>> appropriate places and stop installing unneeded crap, but you can't expect
>> someone else on the PETSc team to magically fix misinstalls and you need to
>> be proactive as well.
>> It is important to follow "standards" when possible even if they are a bit
>> annoying so long as they don't totally ruin the user experience. Our current
>> install is not written in stone and can be adjusted to make package people
>> happy if possible.
>>> On Feb 23, 2018, at 2:19 PM, Jed Brown <j...@jedbrown.org> wrote:
>>> What, if anything, really needs to be installed to $prefix/bin?
>>> From the Homebrew lead maintainer.
>>> From: Mike McQuaid <notificati...@github.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [Homebrew/homebrew-core] PETSc: import from homebrew-science
>>> Date: February 23, 2018 at 1:59:53 PM CST
>>> To: Homebrew/homebrew-core <homebrew-c...@noreply.github.com>
>>> Cc: Jed Brown <j...@jedbrown.org>, Mention <ment...@noreply.github.com>
>>> Reply-To: Homebrew/homebrew-core
>>> doesn't this attitude complete defeat the purpose of a package manager?
>>> You're asking of the hardest working package manager maintainers in the
>>> world (@ilovezfs). Chances he has a better idea about the purpose of a
>>> package manager than you do.
>>> I cannot understand not wanting a package because it is complicated to
>>> This is perhaps because you do not maintain a package manager.
>>> What you're suggesting is that any software using PETSc should either force
>>> users to compile it from scratch or discontinue supporting macOS entirely.
>>> No, what's being suggested is that PETSc's currently upstream installation
>>> is a mess and we don't want to maintain the hacks required to make it not
>>> one indefinitely. You can copy and paste this formula as-is into a tap and
>>> it'll work for you just fine.
>>> That seems like the wrong approach for a package manager.
>>> In the package manager you maintain you should take a different approach,
>>> Just my opinion...
>>> If you have to end your statement like that: it's probably worth keeping
>>> quiet in future, please.
>>> To be clear, I'm not being harsh here because I like doing so but because
>>> this entitled, know-it-all attitude literally kills open source projects
>>> and @ilovezfs's motivation is more important to me than allowing that to go
>>> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
>>> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.