[petsc-dev] [petsc-maint #80119] Re: make install broken on unix?

[Barry Smith]

On Jul 25, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Sean Farley <sean at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> I disagree with this completely.  There's a tendency to think of everything python as a package -- this is NOT a package.  It has no __init__.py, it has no __all__, it has no submodules, and it doesn't need any of that.  It simply does a one-off task -- it's bits of code to be used in a script.  Putting this sort of code in site-packages is what makes site-packages the nightmare of ignored dependencies and overlapping versions it is today.
> 
> If you want to make it into a package, you're welcome to do so.  With that includes registration with the cheeseshop to make sure the namespace is unique, placing the single file within a folder that includes an __init__ (and then likely just gets imported within that __init__), writing a setup.py, etc etc.  It's just complete overkill.
> 
> Then why put it in bin/python at all? Just drop the .py extension and put it in bin (with a 'correct' [whatever that may be] python hashbang)?

   Because directories are a useful way to organize categories of software (for example the bin/matlab directory has all the Matlab scripts). Why not just not use subdirectories in PETSc and just stick all PETSc files directly into the PETSc root directory?

   Barry

> 
> I am for this, although I do not give a crap what the extension is.

> 
>    Matt
>  
> Sean
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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