> On Apr 25, 2018, at 2:40 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Smith, Barry F." <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> On Apr 25, 2018, at 2:31 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Smith, Barry F." <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>>> On Apr 25, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is currently installed to include/petsc/mpiuni/mpi.h and petscsys.h
>>>>> includes it as <mpi.h>, which means that users of MPIUNI need to put
>>>>> -I/prefix/include/petsc/mpiuni in their command lines. Matt and I agree
>>>>> that this is bad. We disagree on the solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> He wants to install it to /prefix/include/mpi.h as though the user had
>>>>> written --download-mpich. This would conflict if a user later installs
>>>>> a real MPI to that location.
>>>>
>>>> Jed,
>>>>
>>>> So you propose in petscsys.h ?
>>>>
>>>> #if defined(PETSC_HAVE_MPIUNI)
>>>> #include <petsc/mpiuni/mpi.h>
>>>> #else
>>>> #include <mpi.h>
>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a problem with this.
>>>
>>> Yes, and same installation layout as today.
>>
>> Ok, this is far better than copying the mpiuni mpi.h file to a
>> public place (Matt's suggestion) and is a bit better than requiring
>> the extra -I flag (Satish's suggestion)
>
> Is this okay for 'maint'? It feels aggressive, but I'm having trouble
> constructing a scenario in which it would break an existing installation
> or existing code.
Seems ok to me.
