[petsc-dev] Future of make?

[Matthew Knepley]

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>
> On Jul 12, 2010, at 7:04 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>
> > I would like to quit using 'make' in favor of builder.py. I have been
> doing this myself, but I have to
> > constantly port the changes people make to the original build. Is there a
> reason to maintain make?
>
>   ALL the examples.
>

Okay.


>  New stuff we are just adding for Cuda builds. You will need to add support
> to builder for that.
>

Yes, that was one point of my mail.


>  In order to be in a position to not maintain the "regular" make, several
> people, NOT JUST YOU, will need to know how to add new features, fix bugs
> etc. The old make sucks but a least 4 or 5 people can can work on it.  The
> sooner you make builder.py completely understandable (it is actually already
> somewhat understandable) then the sooner we can switch. Also it needs to
> handle all strange corner cases that make supports.
>

Okay, in order to do that I need feedback about the badness. That is the
other point of this mail. At this point,
all I really need is for people to try it first for anything. If it fails,
mail.

Also, starting a list of strange corner cases would help.

    Matt


>
>   Barry
>
> >
> > Also, I pushed preliminary support for dependency checking into
> builder.py.
> >
> >    Matt
> >
> > --
> > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
> experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
> experiments lead.
> > -- Norbert Wiener
>
>


-- 
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments
is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments
lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20100712/59c48080/attachment.html>