logic of config options

[Giuseppe Ghibò]

Satish Balay wrote:
> On Tue, 5 May 2009, Giuseppe Ghibò wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi.
>>
>> I'm trying to package petsc 2.3.3,
>>     
>
> Why package this older version? Current version is 3.0.0.
>
>   
Because I've to use bundled with libmesh 
(http://libmesh.sourceforge.net) and IIRC it talks only (or maybe advice 
don't remember exactly) about PetSC 2.3.3 and not 3.0.0.
>> but I didn't understand the logic of some options, in particular for
>> umfpack.  E.g. If I specify at the config stage:
>>
>> --with-umfpack-lib=[${_libdir}/libumfpack.a,${_libdir}/libamd.a]
>>
>> and the ${_libdir} path contains both shared and static libraries then
>> the linking command are expanded to:
>>
>> -lumfpack -Wl,-rpath,<path of petsc> -lamd
>>
>> Ditto if I specify:
>>
>> --with-umfpack-lib=[libumfpack.a]
>>
>> they are expanded to the two libs "-lumpack -lamd" (i.e. it guesses the
>> other lib "libamd" even if I don't specify).
>>     
>
> petsc-3.0.0 won't add the extra -lamd
>   

> Currently this is not possible. Perhpas it will be if "-Lfoo -lbar" is
> supported.
>   
well, IIRC I tried and didn't worked (and -L was not even needed because 
of system-path), but maybe there could be added an extra behaviour (see 
my previous mail) to let the user take full control about which 
libraries should be passed to pass detecting tests.

Bye
Giuseppe.