On 7/2/2019 1:21 PM, Smith, Barry F. wrote:
On Jul 2, 2019, at 9:57 AM, JR Cary via petsc-dev <petsc-dev@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
The only way that we current support this is with the cygwin install
process.
I added some notes (from Satish) on the difficulties of getting a pure
Windows compiler build using the other systems. See the bottom of
https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/pull-requests/1836/installationhtml-edited-online-with/diff
Not necessarily impossible but someone would have to sit down and work through
it. It is basically because of the different way the Microsoft developer tools
handle paths and command line options.
Thanks. It is what I expected. We find that our users want real
Windows apps, not WSL, not a VM.
Thanks again....John
Barry
Does this give one a petsc that can then be linked into a pure Windows
application, e.g., using Visual Studio?
Thx......John
On 7/2/19 8:52 AM, Balay, Satish via petsc-dev wrote:
I guess any linux installation mode should work on WSL. Pip is primarily there
for petsc4py.
Perhaps we could add it somewhere for both linux and windows..
Satish
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, Ham, David A wrote:
For the record, `pip install petsc` is known to cleanly install PETSc on WSL.
This is basically what happens in the firedrake installer, which works on WSL.
Instructions are here:
https://github.com/firedrakeproject/firedrake/wiki/Installing-on-Windows-Subsystem-for-Linux
On 01/07/2019, 23:26, "petsc-dev on behalf of Smith, Barry F. via petsc-dev"
<petsc-dev-boun...@mcs.anl.gov on behalf of petsc-dev@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/pull-requests/1836/installationhtml-edited-online-with/diff
I try to provide a better guild for Windows possibilities without
windows compilers. (Could probably do with some light editing). Maybe more
options?
Satish,
At the bottom of the Windows installation instructions on
installation.html you should list your bullets below to explain the
difficulties of using Windows compilers in general and perhaps inspire someone
to add code for one of the other systems.
> On Jul 1, 2019, at 4:43 PM, Balay, Satish <ba...@mcs.anl.gov>
wrote:
>
> This discussion comes up each time a user has issues with cygwin.
>
> For any alternate system, we would have to redo win32fe functionality
for that system.
>
> • Marshal gcc type compiler options to Cl
> • Convert paths in some of these options from this system ( for ex
cygwin paths) to Windows paths.
> • Have python that works with system path notation.
> • Have the ability equivalent to Windows process spawning cygwin
process spawning Windows process. Wsl1 lacked this. Don't know about wsl2..
>
> Current issue with cygwin was some bash config issue. Even if we manage
to port build tools to wsl2 or alternative system, such sub-tool issues can still
come up in the new system.
>
>
> Satish
>
> From: Smith, Barry F. via petsc-dev
> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 2:17 PM
> To: Mills, Richard Tran
> Cc: petsc-dev@mcs.anl.gov
> Subject: Re: [petsc-dev] alternatives to cygwin on Windows with PETSc
>
>
> Richard,
>
> Thanks. The important thing is to be able to build PETSc for Microsoft and
Intel Windows compilers (so that users can use the libraries from the Microsoft development
system as a "regular" Windows users).
>
> Barry
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 2019, at 3:59 PM, Mills, Richard Tran via petsc-dev
<petsc-dev@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > I played around with WSL1 quite some time ago and it seemed pretty
promising. I have not tried WSL2, but I'm guessing that it may be the best option for
building PETSc on a Windows 10 machine. I've got a Windows 10 machine (it basically
just runs my television/media center) and I'll give it a try on there.
> >
> > --Richard
> >
> > On 6/29/19 8:11 PM, Jed Brown via petsc-dev wrote:
> >> "Smith, Barry F. via petsc-dev" <petsc-dev@mcs.anl.gov>
> >> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Does it make sense to recommend/suggest git bash for Windows as
an alternative/in addition to Cygwin?
> >>>
> >> I would love to be able to recommend git-bash and/or WSL2 (which now
> >> includes a full Linux kernel). I don't have a system on which to
test,
> >> but it should be possible to make it work (if it doesn't already).
> >>
> >
