<div class="gmail_extra">On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Dave Nystrom <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Dave.Nystrom@tachyonlogic.com" target="_blank">Dave.Nystrom@tachyonlogic.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I have cmake on my system but configure.log does not document that approach.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We did not find it. This is a configure question, and should be mailed to petsc-maint, not the dev list.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
What is your build command to build petsc with cmake?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>make</div><div><br></div><div> Matt</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Dave<br>
<br>
Aron Ahmadia writes:<br>
> I use the CMake build because it's the fastest, though it requires you to<br>
> have CMake installed on your system.<br>
><br>
> A<br>
><br>
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Dave Nystrom <<a href="mailto:Dave.Nystrom@tachyonlogic.com">Dave.Nystrom@tachyonlogic.com</a><br>
> > wrote:<br>
><br>
> > At the end of configure.log, there are two possible ways to build petsc-dev<br>
> > that are specified. Which is the recommended way to build - using make or<br>
> > using python? I have been using make.<br>
> ><br>
> > Also, one is labeled as legacy and one is labeled as experimental. That<br>
> > gives the impression of having a choice between an old, archaic method or a<br>
> > new, experimental approach. Should one just be labeled as production?<br>
> ><br>
> > Thanks,<br>
> ><br>
> > Dave<br>
> ><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead.<br>
-- Norbert Wiener<br>
</div>