I do not propose to remove the possibility for the user to type "configure" and "make" separately, if they really want to. Just add a new possibility to do everything at once, like what you apparently describe by TOPSInstaller. You should keep a non-gui version of it, too, for remote installs.
On 06/21/2011 01:50 PM, Barry Smith wrote: > > Run ./bin/TOPSInstaller.py -- the next generation of this should be a > javascript gui beasty that runs in your browser. > > > Regarding the ./configure; make model. If we didn't have this all the > gnu/linux bigots would give us a hard time (which they do already). In other > words, it is what most people expect. > > Barry > > On Jun 21, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Andrew Knyazev wrote: > >> On 06/21/2011 01:29 PM, Barry Smith wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 21, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Andrew Knyazev wrote: >>> >>>> On 06/21/2011 12:24 PM, Jose E. Roman wrote: >>>>>> SLEPc has the headers not in the same directory as PETSc? Why? >>>>> SLEPc could be installed by a user that does not have write permission in >>>>> PETSc's directory. >>>> >>>> PETSc gives so many different configure options, so it is quite rare to >>>> see it installed by a sysadmin nowadays, in my experience. >>>> >>>> At any rate, it would be nice to have a tighter integration of SLEPc >>>> into PETsc, ideally, simply to be able to install SLEPSc by using >>>> --download-slepsc=1 option in PETSc. I am sure that it would >>>> significanly increase the number of SLPEc users. >>> >>> >>> To do this we need to broaden our Packages concept to have both pre and >>> post packages. Currently we handle pre packages (that PETSc uses) pretty >>> well but do not handle post packages (that use PETSc). Prometheus is this >>> weird thing that is partially pre and partially post and is handled a bit >>> too ad hocly. >>> >>> In some ways post packages are pretty easy, we just need to set up the >>> infrastructure. >>> >>> Since the user doesn't care about pre and post we'd want to support the >>> same --download-xxx syntax in both cases (with some way of passing optional >>> arguments) and, of course, as Jed points out additional -download-xxx can >>> be used after a build. >>> >>> Barry >> >> >> For the user, could you perhaps add a new script "install" which would >> just do everything: configure, make PETSc, install PETSc, and all >> necessary pre and post packages, plus compile all examples? I could >> never understand why PETSc requires the user to type "make" separately >> and then also compile every individual example. >> >> Of course, typing "make" gives the user a false feeling that they know >> and control what they are doing. But this feeling goes away quickly, and >> the moral value of these few high moments is not that great anyway. >
