On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Matthew Knepley wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Satish Balay wrote: > > > > > Now that there are more and more standalone scripts - perhaps we need > > > a better consistant way to handle this - but I don't know what that > > > is.. > > > > mercurial way is to have 'hg' be the frontend script to all commands. > > i.e no invocation of individual scripts .. > > > > Perhaps we should adopt that? > > > That requires a Mercurial 'install', which is not different than a) or c) > namely > > c) Put PETSC_DIR in your PATH, which is env var manipulation > > a) Change /usr/bin, which is always in the path (like installing inside > Python)
I don't understand what you are saying here. Perhaps I should explain what I meant by 'hg' way.. currently we have: ./config/configure.py ./config/install.py ./config/builder.py and perhaps ./config/cmakegen.py All of them need to find buildsystem [and install.py needs to additionally find a priour build - i.e prior PETSC_ARCH used] so the interface coud be a single script ./config/script configure ./config/script install ./config/script builder ./config/script cmakegen Where ./config/script does the autodetection of buildsystem [common code - so that its not replicated in all the scripts - one of the issues Jed has alluded to] - and then invoke the correct underlying functional script underneath. Satish