config/ -> configure?

Satish Balay balay at
Thu Jul 17 13:09:25 CDT 2008

The primary reason we have ./config/ [instead of
./configure] is due to the presence of ./config/ etc
scripts which use ./config/

So now usage of ./config/ or ./config/ is

We can have ./configure as a link to ./config/ [at the
cost of making the user interface of ./configure vs
./config/ inconsistant]

And the reason we want to promote usage of ./config/
notation is so that we we don't have users creating shell scripts with
configure options in them.


> From: Barry Smith <bsmith at>
>     petsc-dev folks,
>     is there any technical reason we cannot just change the name of  
> config/ to configure?
> (does Windows care about the .py and python in cygwin?)
>     is there any nontechnical reason we cannot/should not make the  
> change?
>     Barry
> My thinking is "the more like what people are use to, the less other  
> people have to learn/deal with,
> the easier it is for people". Seems like a "little thing" but little  
> things accumulate into big things if you
> don't eliminate as many little things as possible.

More information about the petsc-dev mailing list