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

Farshid Mossaiby mossaiby at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 4 15:53:52 CST 2008


I do not know related it is, boost_build / bjam is another beast to consider. Based on python, runs OK on windows and seem quite nice in the project I work with it.

Farshid Mossaiby

--- On Fri, 12/5/08, Jed Brown <jed at 59A2.org> wrote:

> From: Jed Brown <jed at 59A2.org>
> Subject: Re: [PETSC #18705] PETSc and Cygwin License (POSIX layer)
> To: petsc-dev at mcs.anl.gov
> Date: Friday, December 5, 2008, 12:21 AM
> On Thu 2008-12-04 16:58, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Barry Smith
> <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > >
> > >  Make is NOT the problem! (It is just one of
> several)
> > 
> > Indeed. However, at some time I'll try to make
> PETSc build with Scons.
> Presumably you have some experience with SCons, but I think
> it's really
> not such a good way to go.  It's pretty slow for large
> projects and the
> caching design seems to generate inconsistent state
> somewhat regularly.
> Also, big projects seem to always end up with a fork of
> SCons or abandon
> it for alternatives.
> I've been using CMake for my stuff (linking against
> PETSc and a few
> other libs).  The syntax is pretty hideous for scripting,
> but the
> declarative build definition is very nice.  Since it uses
> the native
> build system, the IDE-using people on Windows would
> probably prefer it
> as well.  It would be trivial (like an hour, plus some for
> tests) to
> replace the current recursive make with CMake, replacing
> BuildSystem
> would obviously require a bit of tedium, if it was even
> desirable.
> BuildSystem is a very different beast from the
> "configuration" tools
> that are out there since it also fills in as a package
> manager
> (extremely nice since lots of optional dependencies have
> really painful
> build systems).
> In any case, having proper dependency analysis would be
> *really* cool, a
> do-nothing rebuild of ParaView (includes VTK, >2M LOC in
> many
> directories) takes 10 seconds so the usual PETSc few-file
> recompile
> after 'hg pull -u' would be a 2-second affair.
> Anyway, I'd suggest having a look at CMake before
> implementing an SCons
> build.
> Jed


More information about the petsc-dev mailing list