> On Oct 13, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Arne Morten Kvarving
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > No, some things are actually better than other things. This is why its
> > engineering and not art appreciation.
>
> let me rephrase that. it depends on your position. i'm sure you have sound,
> technical reasons for reinventing the wheel. but from a user's point of view
> that sucks, because now i have to learn how to operate (or more relevant;
> change) a new wheel. with cmake or automake, it is (well, ideally) learn
> once, apply everywhere. with custom solutions, you get to spend time learning
> stuff all over again, stuff which cannot be reapplied elsewhere.
>
> ref the thing here that happened with my misunderstanding of the purpose of
> that config file. whenever i see a <Package>Config.cmake it is the cmake
> config mode file for <Package>. it did not occur to me that it could be
> anything else, because i have never seen it be anything else in any other
> pieces of software.
>
> Yes, we need to change the name of that. Its very confusing and no longer
> used.
Satish,
Can you please change the name of this file so it doesn't cause confusion
in the future. Put something in the name to clearly indicate it is not a
<Package>Config.cmake for people to use. Perhaps
DoNotUseThisInternalToPetscOnlyConfig.cmake
Thanks
Barry
>
> We tried very hard to use CMake, but it was woefully inadequate. We wrote a
> long and detailed analysis
> of the shortcomings, posted it to the PETSc list, and set it to the
> developers. Nothing has been fixed, and
> thus we have moved on.
>
> Matt
>
> not trying to pick a fight. just clarifying what i meant.
>
>
>
> --
> 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
