[petsc-dev] DESTDIR

[Satish Balay]

What I refer is not using petsc makefiles in the normal sense. Jed's
shows how one can script using the following:

CFLAGS += `petsc-config --includes`

The current equivalent of this scripting is:

CFLAGS+= `make -f PETSC_DIR/makefile getincludes`


[It was just pointed-out that there is no PETSC_DIR/makefile in a
prefixinstall - but thats fixable].

Just saying we already have a mechanism so perhaps a new one is not
needed [it needs a few fixes though].

It could be - a separate petsc-config binary is a better user
interface - so a new one is preferable..

Satish

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Dmitry Karpeev wrote:

> 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
>