I think that Jed could reasonably argue that the basic Mac OS infrastructure is so screwy that trying to maintain a reasonable open source package manager on top of it is a lost cause; though I love Mac OS dearly, I would have to agree with him.
You guys are trying to build a castle in a swamp (which itself has shifting sands), until Apple makes something upon which a reasonable open source package manager could be built you will always have basic troubles. Apple doesn’t seem to know or care Barry On Jan 28, 2014, at 5:18 PM, Sean Farley <[email protected]> wrote: > > [email protected] writes: > >> On Jan 28, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Geoff Oxberry <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Sean Farley >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> [email protected] 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. > > 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. > > Instead of criticizing here, the energy could be better spent by > contributing.
