[petsc-dev] related to compiling your source code

[Mark Adams]

> >
> > If everyone is using ~/.petscrc then I can suck it up but if nobody is
> then this is a red hearing and we should just do it.
>
>   You are avoiding the question. If we get rid of .petscrc how can we
> possible not get rid of PETSC_OPTIONS since it has the exact same possible
> problems (and we have plenty of previous experience with outdated
> environmental variables)


Barry, I have answered this question.  Let me try to spell this out
explicitly.

1) Does anyone need ~.petscrc other than Satish?  If not then kill.
(Satish, or another expert user, is a big boy and he can take care of
himself. eg, he can use PETSC_OPTIONS.)

2) If so then is PETSC_OPTIONS the only/best alternative?

3) If so, then what is cost of moving users to it?  (Data on number of
users needed, so far 0/2)

4) Given the cost of the number of users to switch and our cost factor for
switching users (ie, epsilon), is it a better solution long term?

5) I think it is: again, the problems that I have seen over the years is
*not* someone forgetting that they *intentionally* once put a .petscrc file
in their home directory but that the use their home directory as a scratch
space and have a .petscrc file there by accident.  .bashrc files at least
have to be explicitly edited an are not used as a scratch pad.  Home
directories are use as a scratch pad by many users.

At this point is is not clear that we even need to get past (1).

Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20150415/6fcd2a0b/attachment.html>