petsc-dev directory structure questions

[Barry Smith]

On Dec 14, 2007, at 12:05 PM, Satish Balay wrote:

> On further thought, I'm ok with merging conf and config - provided
> 'config' [which would be the new merged name for conf]

    Why config instead of conf?

> would not have
> any of the old $PETSC_DIR/python stuff. [i,e if it goes somewere into
> $PETSC_DIR/src/foobar]

    Why should it go somewhere else; it manages all the configuration
so it should be with the configuration stuff.

    src traditional means code that gets compiled up and put in a
library or executable: the old PETSC_DIR/python stuff definitely
does not fit in that category.

>
>
> We currently have generated files anyway at
> PETSC_ARCH/conf/[configure.py,petscconf,petscrules], so I guess
> PETSC_DIR/config/[configure.py,linux-gnu.py,base,rules,..]  should be
> equivalent.

   Having PETSC_DIR/config/variables,rules but
PETSC_ARCH/conf/petscconf seems VERY wrong to me. Why is
one directory config and the other one conf?

    Barry

>
>
> With this, the curent user interface of ./config/configure.py
> ./config/linux-gnu.py would be unchanged.
>
> Satish
>
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Satish Balay wrote:
>
>> I guess my thoughts in the previous e-mail were all over the place -
>> so here is an attempt to get something consistant out.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> <Barry>
>>
>> 2) putting the ons of sample configure.py files for different systems
>> into a subdirectory called samples
>>
>> <Richard>
>> A much more descriptive name for the 'config' directory would be
>> something like 'BuildScripts'.
>>
>> <Lisandro>
>> * I'm on Richard's side. I believe all the build scripts in 'config'
>> should be placed in other location, let say 'maint/BuildScripts/'.
>>
>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>
>> One issue here is - when you refer to scripts in config - are you
>> refering to things like just 'linux-gnu.py' or both configure.py &
>> linux-gnu.py.
>>
>> ** In the current design _both_ scripts are equivalent [wrt user
>> invocation]. Hence in the same location. **
>>
>> <option1>
>> So the current porposal of PETSC_DIR/BuildScripts & PETSC_DIR/config
>> is _exaclty_ the same organization as what we had before [with
>> PETSC_DIR/config & PETSC_DIR/python], with dirs being renamed.
>> PETSC_DIR/python could have aswell be moved to PETSC_DIR/src/foobar
>> [and it would still be consistant to me].
>>
>> Issue: Woud user now invoke ./BuildScripts/configure.py?
>>
>> <option2>
>> However if the intent is to splitup configure.py & linux-gnu.py, the
>> organization avaliable is: PETSC_DIR/configure.py, PETSC_DIR/config,
>> and PETSC_DIR/BuildScripts.
>>
>> *****
>> With the above two options , Barrys primary concern with eliminating
>> one of 'conf' and 'config' is not resolved. [only better renaming is
>> done, with a cost of different ueser interface with ./configure.py  
>> and
>> ./BuildScripts/linux-gnu.py]
>> ******
>>
>> <option2A>
>> Now move PETSC_DIR/config to PETSC_DIR/src/config-foobar. This  
>> removes
>> one dir from PETSC_DIR [however BuildScripts & conf, configure.py
>> still remain]
>>
>> <options2B>
>> Also move PETSC_DIR/BuildScripts to PETSC_DIR/maint/BuildScripts.
>> However with this approach [as we don't distribute 'maint' to users,
>> this would be loss in usr functionality.
>>
>> We are attempting all of this reorganization just because the name
>> 'conf' is too close to 'config'. [And I fear we might break more than
>> what we are fixing]
>>
>> Satish
>>
>>
>