Fwd: [PETSC #18705] PETSc and Cygwin License (POSIX layer)

Matthew Knepley knepley at gmail.com
Thu Dec 4 12:43:24 CST 2008

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Matthew Knepley wrote:
> > I for one think it should be possible to remove 'make' from the
> > toolchain, leaving us with only win32fe, which we distribute. Thus
> > I think we could abandon cygwin once and for all. I would even be
> > willing to write a \emph{make clone} to accomplish this, even though
> > I am a committed enemy of make (which once TP'ed my house).
> For one there is some cygwin code in win32fe to handle cygwin paths
> [its difficult for us avoid doing this - and solely rely on MS path
> scheme in our builds].

Did not know that. It will have to be rewritten.

> And I don't think its an issue of 'make clone'. We use tons of shell
> and other unixy stuff in the build process - within each recursive
> make invocation steps.

We have slowly eliminated the use of UNIX tools from the build. I believe
the last impediment is shell. All this shell code would be converted to
Python, since our 'make clone' would speak Python natively instead of shell.
The March of Progress.


> Satish
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments
is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments
-- Norbert Wiener
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20081204/d7fb3db5/attachment.html>

More information about the petsc-dev mailing list