petsc-dev directory structure questions

[Barry Smith]

    Matt,

      This is a rational for the current set up (or perhaps more a  
rationalization :-))
The reason for merging is for others attempting to understand our
system; all the little complications add up to a system that is  
overwhelming
to other people so in my mind anything that reduces the complications is
good thing (so long as it doesn't screw up other things).

   Does anyone else have comments?

    Barry


On Dec 9, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote:

> 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
>