proposal for common configuration elements for ITAPS services

[Mark Miller]

In a recent email, the following issues were raised which I think add to
this discussion...

A. Standardization of autoconf support for MPI. --with-mpi is one
   way to handle it. CC=mpicc is another.
B. Does --enable-imeshp imply --enable-imesh? If so, are there
   other cases of implied dependency between ITAPS interfaces we
   need to consider/address?

Mark

On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 07:54, Carl Ollivier-Gooch wrote:
> So returning to this subject (as per Karen's request), I have two 
> suggestions:
> 
> 1.  For -implementations-, which need to know at configure time whether 
> to build support for an interface, I propose we use:
> 
>    --enable-imesh
>    --enable-imeshp
>    --enable-igeom
>    --enable-irel
>    --enable-ifield
> 
> Currently: of four implementations, we have --enable-imesh, 
> --enable-iMesh, --enable-itaps, --enable-tsttm (the ref implementation 
> needs no flag here, for obvious reasons).  Lower case seems preferred 
> (and is typical for configure options).  And imesh is definitely the 
> right thing to append (he says, despite currently using something else). 
>   Unless someone has strenuous objections, we should standardize to 
> this, ideally before the next buildapolooza in a week and a half.
> 
> 2.  For services and applications, which "only" need to know where to 
> find some include and link info, I find Jason's argument in favor of 
> using autoconf environment variables compelling, especially the part 
> about being able to build multiple components more easily.  What do 
> other people think about adopting this as a standard for all our services?
> 
> Carl
-- 
Mark C. Miller, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
================!!LLNL BUSINESS ONLY!!================
miller86 at llnl.gov      urgent: miller86 at pager.llnl.gov
T:8-6 (925)-423-5901    M/W/Th:7-12,2-7 (530)-753-8511