[petsc-dev] configure failed after update of OSX

Geoff Oxberry goxberry at gmail.com
Tue Jan 28 17:38:21 CST 2014

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, Sean Farley <sean.michael.farley at gmail.com>

> bsmith at mcs.anl.gov <javascript:;> writes:
> > On Jan 28, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Geoff Oxberry <goxberry at gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Sean Farley <
> sean.michael.farley at gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>
> >> goxberry at gmail.com <javascript:;> 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.

Also agreed; the other package managers suffer from this problem as well.

> 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.

Absolutely. Most scientists don't care about these issues until it bites
them in the ass.

> Instead of criticizing here, the energy could be better spent by
> contributing.

Couldn't agree more. Had I not had a bad experience with MacPorts, I would
be using SciencePorts, and I think it's important to work on packaging
issues. My biases aside, I hope MacPorts improves, and I think it's good
that you're working on it.

Geoffrey Oxberry, Ph.D., E.I.T.
goxberry at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20140128/31798823/attachment.html>

More information about the petsc-dev mailing list