[petsc-dev] configure failed after update of OSX

[Satish Balay]

On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Barry Smith wrote:

> > 
> > Satish is probably right here about the build location. It's been three or four years since I've installed it this way. I stand by that it's still difficult to revert. I actually tried this method because of PETSc and regretted it because the experience was terrible. Using a package manager is more maintainable, and I think PETSc's recommendation of the hpc.sourceforge build is a disservice to both users and to PETSc's excellent reputation.
> 
>    I think package managers for Mac OS are a disservice to the community and recommend not using them. (See all the discussions in these emails about how they fuck up).
> 

My view is: anyone using OSX has bought into the idea of not having a
proper package management system. [yeah you get easy-install packages
- but most of them don't have an proper way to uninstall - unless its
an "osx-app" which you can drag/drop into trash]

gfortran from hpc.sourceforge does things "no worse" than most packages
that are available for OSX.

Its not obvious - but one can use the file listing from the tarball [as
mentioned in my previous e-mail to uninstall]. And is tucked away
in /usr/local - so it doesn't do any damage like other packages.

[for eg: install mercurial for OSX - and see if you can uninstall it]

I agree a better package management system [aka macports/homebrew]
should be preferable. But with all the wierd issues that keep comping
up with users using macports on petsc lists - I can't convince myself
that it is a better recommendation.

perhaps homebrew is better - I don't know.

I would aswell recommend virtualbox with linux as a superior choice.

Satish