I do not expect users downloading the next release tarball to know in
advance about this, nor to actually ever download required stuff. Does
this make sense?
> [0]PETSC ERROR: - Error Message
>
> [0]PETSC ERROR: Unable to open file!
> [0]PE
fixed now.
thanks,
satish
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> I do not expect users downloading the next release tarball to know in
> advance about this, nor to actually ever download required stuff. Does
> this make sense?
>
> > [0]PETSC ERROR: - Error Message
> >
I'm testing configure passing '--prefix=', and after building, I do
$ su -c 'make install'
But then, some files ('configure.log', 'RDict.db') are left with
'root:root' owner and group. If you want to build/rebuild again, this
fails bad.
And you know, using 'sudo' is not always a chance, as de
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Satish Balay wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>
>> It it is not too late, I would like to add the following macro in
>> petscversion.h
>>
>> #if !defined(PETSC_VERSION_)
>
> I think there should not be this #if test. [Its more appropriate for
> p
It it is not too late, I would like to add the following macro in petscversion.h
#if !defined(PETSC_VERSION_)
#define PETSC_VERSION_(MAJOR,MINOR,SUBMINOR) \
(PETSC_VERSION_MAJOR== MAJOR&& \
PETSC_VERSION_MINOR== MINOR&& \
PETSC_VERSION_SUBMINOR == SUBMINOR
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> It it is not too late, I would like to add the following macro in
> petscversion.h
>
> #if !defined(PETSC_VERSION_)
I think there should not be this #if test. [Its more appropriate for
petsc4py to check for this flag and redefine for old petsc versio
