[petsc-dev] DESTDIR

[Dmitry Karpeev]

I agree that the information is already there (PETSc makefiles).
I think Jed's point was that some people might want to avoid using
PETSc's makefile system.

Dmitry

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Dmitry Karpeev wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Jed Brown <jed at 59a2.org> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:04:33 -0500, Dmitry Karpeev <karpeev at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>> >> The users definitely have to decide in the end for themselves,
>> >> but they also need to know how the libraries they are about to link against
>> >> were compiled, I think.  I prefer to give the users more information and then
>> >> let them decide whether to throw it out, rather than give them too little
>> >> (I hate being in that position, I know that much).
>> >
>> > I think we're agreeing, I just don't want them to have to parse a
>> > returned command line to isolate parts that they would like separately.
>>
>> I agree.  Better to give them both the whole (the command line) and
>> the pieces (compiler, flags, etc).
>
> there are different ways of doing it:
>
> 1. 'mpicc -show'
>
> 2. pkgconfig as Jed mentioned
>
> 3. makefiles - as currently implemented by PETSc. 'make getincludes'
>
> So we already have a mechanism that provides the relavent
> info. Perhaps we need to add more 'make targets' to get the equivalent
> of some of this stuff:
>
>>>
>  CC ?= `petsc-config --c-compiler`
>  CFLAGS += `petsc-config --includes`
>  LDFLAGS += `petsc-config --libs --shared --no-rpath`
> <<
>
> Its possible that alternative mechanisms might be useful. But if its
> not pkgconfig or petsccc [which some folks might expect] perhaps the
> current makefile mechanism is good enough - and a new one is not
> needed?
>
> Satish