On Jul 17, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Satish Balay wrote:
And the reason we want to promote usage of ./config/bgp-ibm-opt.py
notation is so that we we don't have users creating shell scripts with
configure options in them.
What is the proceedure that people use when configureing for
packages
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Barry Smith wrote:
On Jul 17, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Satish Balay wrote:
And the reason we want to promote usage of ./config/bgp-ibm-opt.py
notation is so that we we don't have users creating shell scripts with
configure options in them.
What is the proceedure
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Satish Balay wrote:
If we could support the same way that this is done with autoconf packages
that would improve a users experience with PETSc.
I guess we don't prevent the usage from shell scripts. We just promote
the alternative usage of adding configure options
Speaking of configure and user experiences, I just noticed that PETSc
defines top_builddir (in petscconf), which conflicts with
automake-generated makefiles, making it impossible in some cases to
include PETSc's petsconf file into Makefile.am (as far as I know that's
the only thing that causes
On Jul 17, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Boyana Norris wrote:
Speaking of configure and user experiences, I just noticed that
PETSc defines top_builddir (in petscconf), which conflicts with
automake-generated makefiles, making it impossible in some cases to
include PETSc's petsconf file into
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Barry Smith bsmith at mcs.anl.gov wrote:
On Jul 17, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Boyana Norris wrote:
Speaking of configure and user experiences, I just noticed that PETSc
defines top_builddir (in petscconf), which conflicts with automake-generated
makefiles, making it
The primary reason we have ./config/configure.py [instead of
./configure] is due to the presence of ./config/bgp-ibm-opt.py etc
scripts which use ./config/configure.py
So now usage of ./config/configure.py or ./config/bgp-ibm-opt.py is
consistant.
We can have ./configure as a link to
