petsc-dev directory structure questions

[Matthew Knepley]

I am cool with the division because

  1) config is for configuration tools explicitly

  2) conf is for things that customize the build

They have completely different things in them, and I do not see that we
need to merge them.

   Thanks,

     Matt

On Dec 8, 2007 10:13 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
>     Currently petsc-dev has the subdirectories
>
>       bin include src conf config ...
>
> $PETSC_ARCH has the subdirectories
>
>     bin include conf lib ...
>
> conf has
>
>     adic.init           adicmf.init             base                    test
>     adicmastercontrol   adicmfb.init            rules                   variables
>
> config has
>
>     PETSc BuildSystem configure.py   +tons of sample configure.py
> files for different systems
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   I find that having both a conf and a config directory is confusing
> and unneeded and propose:
>
> 1) merging the config and conf directory
> 2) putting the ons of sample configure.py files for different systems
> into a subdirectory called samples
>
> Questions:
>
> 1) Does this make sense?
>
> 2) What should the directory be called? conf or config? Are there any
> standards that dictate/suggest
>      one over the other? If we use config then I would like to change
> the $PETSC_ARCH/conf directory
>      to match it, but would that violate some standard? I'm inclined
> to go with conf even though that breaks
>      our long standing config/configure.py script to become conf/
> configure.py
>
> 3) This is perhaps also a good time to reopen the question of PETSc
> "installs": currently they go into
>      (system independent) prefix/bin prefix/include prefix/conf and
> the system dependent prefix/$PETSC_ARCH/conf
>      prefix/$PETSC_ARCH/include prefix/$PETSC_ARCH/lib If one selects
> a PETSC_ARCH of "" then
>      everything ends up in prefix/bin prefix/include prefix/conf
> prefix/lib.
>
>     The reason for this design is so that the same makefiles with
> includes based on PETSC_DIR and
>     PETSC_ARCH will work in all three cases: no install of PETSc,
> install with PETSC_ARCH and install with
>     PETSC_ARCH ""
>
>     I know we will never get full agreement on everything, but what
> are the concerns with this layout?
>
>
>     Thanks
>
>       Barry
>
> Remember if I don't get comments I may do some crazy thing :-(
>
>
>



-- 
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