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

[Jed Brown]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:16, Ethan Coon <ecoon at lanl.gov> wrote:

> It's not really a stand-alone script though, so it shouldn't get the
> hashbang or lose the extension.  But it's not a full-fledged package of
> libraries either.  I don't think it should be anywhere in the default path
> -- it's the kind of code that you should have to explicitly include (either
> via sys.path manipulation or via PYTHONPATH) because too many little scripts
> of utility code makes for a nasty, polluted namespace.  There just isn't a
> good place (that I know of) in the standard file system hierarchy for this
> kind of stuff.


Making the user/scripts do manual sys.path or PYTHONPATH manipulation makes
it nearly impossible to make portable scripts that depend on these
functions. Should we start a "proper" Python package containing PETSc
utilities? Then scripts could rely on

from petsc.io import binary_read

or whatever working. Of course it might only contain two functions right
now, but I could add my "petscplot" (makes various types of convergence and
scaling plots from convergence monitors and -log_summary output), and I'm
sure the community has other useful scripts.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20110725/f2024bf9/attachment.html>