[petsc-dev] broken builds

[Barry Smith]

On Aug 30, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Jed Brown wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 14:24, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> The Satish way (which is always the correct way) is to do rm -rf ${PETSC_ARCH} and then run ./configure again.
> 
> Yes, but the run-time of this operation is 2^{1 + millions of dollars paid for machine} minutes so it clearly won't work at the exascale. You're going to be left in the past if you keep thinking like that.

   We are paid to use up the time on those machines to justify their purchase, we are not paid to use that time well :-)

> 
> 
> More seriously, rm -rf ${PETSC_ARCH} is horrible because you lose reconfigure-$PETSC_ARCH.py if you don't relocate it first.

   Totally agree which is why it is Satish's way and not my way. 

   Back to your proposal, which you have to admit is pretty ugly

    --download-package      gets the tarball if needed and builds
   --download-package=something.tar.gz   use this tarball and build
   --download-package=rebuild   reconfigure and rebuild package (even if it thinks it doesn't need to)

   I don't like the fact that what comes after the = is disparate;  a keyword or a filename


    Don't we also need 
   --download-package=update   get the latest tarball and build from that?