On Mon, 31 May 2010 19:13:07 -0500, Barry Smith bsmith at mcs.anl.gov wrote:
You have an awful lot of confidence in cmake. I have no problem at
all setting up a system where PETSc can use cmake, that's great. But I
don't want PETSc to ever be in a position of not being able to do
In this latest buzz about build systems and IDE integration, I added a
CMake build to PETSc. It is entirely contained in bin/maint/cmakegen.py
and bin/maint/cmakeboot.py and supports multiple PETSC_ARCH, Fortran,
C++ (currently only with-c-support), complex/precision/etc, with and
without
Likely we need a subdirectory somewhere to put all the make makers. I would
like a subdirectory of bin/maint; likely Matt wants a subdirectory of config
Currently config is almost all just config stuff, but Matt put his
builder.py that makes in there. I don't object to having the make
On Mon, 31 May 2010 11:10:36 -0500, Barry Smith bsmith at mcs.anl.gov wrote:
Likely we need a subdirectory somewhere to put all the make makers. I
would like a subdirectory of bin/maint; likely Matt wants a subdirectory of
config
Is this really important? It doesn't seem that messy at
You have an awful lot of confidence in cmake. I have no problem at all
setting up a system where PETSc can use cmake, that's great. But I don't want
PETSc to ever be in a position
of not being able to do something because kitware/whatever decided that they no
longer or would not supported
