[petsc-dev] configure failed after update of OSX

[Barry Smith]

  I think that Jed could reasonably argue that the basic Mac OS infrastructure is so screwy that trying to maintain a reasonable open source package manager on top of it is a lost cause; though I love Mac OS dearly, I would have to agree with him.

  You guys are trying to build a castle in a swamp (which itself has shifting sands), until Apple makes something upon which a reasonable open source package manager could be built you will always have basic troubles. Apple doesn’t seem to know or care 

  Barry



On Jan 28, 2014, at 5:18 PM, Sean Farley <sean.michael.farley at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> bsmith at mcs.anl.gov writes:
> 
>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Geoff Oxberry <goxberry at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Sean Farley <sean.michael.farley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> goxberry at gmail.com writes:
>>> 
>>>> To echo what Aron said, I wouldn't point people at the
>>>> hpc.sourceforge.netbuilds. They do install directly into /usr/bin, and
>>>> it's a pain in the ass
>>> 
>>> 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).
> 
> Sigh. It is this type of curmudgeon behavior that pushes away people
> from helping out with these type of projects. Packagers are just
> volunteers and to estrange the current three (yes, three) would be
> unfortunate. Not many (read: none) of the other devs care about having
> multiple compilers (thanks, fortran) nor pandering to the scientific
> community's lack of good software practices.
> 
> It is no secret that MacPorts has historically flubbed on lots of
> PETSc-related issues. I have been trying to change this perspective
> but this email thread pretty succinctly explains what makes my job
> difficult.
> 
> Just look at how difficult it is to install these packages: superlu,
> superlu_dist, metis, parmetis, scotch, scalapack, and mumps.
> 
> The comments here do nothing but drive away users and frustrate
> potential collaborators. Not just for PETSc but for any project that
> depends on PETSc (SLEPc, FEniCS, MOOSE, etc). The true disservice to the
> community is forcing each user to manage their own packages.
> 
> Instead of criticizing here, the energy could be better spent by
> contributing.