[petsc-dev] moab nightlybuild failure

[Satish Balay]

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Satish Balay wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Barry Smith wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Jun 28, 2013, at 11:55 AM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Barry Smith wrote:
> > > 
> > >> 
> > >> On Jun 27, 2013, at 8:46 PM, "Timothy J. Tautges" <tautges at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > >> 
> > >>> I've been mulling whether by default petsc should point to a release tarball anyway, I think it should (4.6 being the latest).
> > >> 
> > >>  PETSc releases should point to moab releases. But PETSc-dev should point to moab-dev
> > > 
> > > This kind of switch adds extra complexity -
> > 
> >     Come on, it cannot be that hard.
> 
> Yes most complexity is manageable at [at some cost and tradeoffs]. Its
> a matter of whats required.
> 
> For ex: If tracking moab-dev is required - one simplification is to
> use the nightly tarballs [as before] - not the git repo.
> 
> Other simplification is to only use git and not tarballs.

Actually even these simplifications have caveats. If proper tracking
is need - the we would have to do sub-repos [which we hated so much].

Satish


> 
> Satish
> .
> > 
> > > and not needed unless moab
> > > and petsc codes are intertwined and released simultaneously.
> > > 
> > > Do we really need to track moab-dev?
> > 
> >    Yes, petsc-dev must track moab-dev!
> > 
> >     In the same way that slepc-dev needs to track petsc-dev
> > 
> >     Barry
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Also the git stuff [instead of just tarballs is adding extra
> > > complexity [which is also breaking some current functionality - like
> > > --download-package=url]
> > > 
> > > Its not clear to me if we really need to track the git repos of
> > > external packages.
> > > 
> > > Satish
> > 
> > 
> 
>