On 30 July 2011 16:18, Jed Brown wrote:
> Does that mean we can just add python utilities to that package, or do we
> need to create petsc-util?
>
Currently, if you "pip install petsc", pip will download PETSc's
tarball release (the -lite one), configure, build and install (in
Python's site-packa
On 25 July 2011 13:15, Barry Smith wrote:
>
> On Jul 25, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>> I disagree with this completely. ?There's a tendency to think of everything
>> python as a package -- this is NOT a package. ?It has no _
On 25 July 2011 19:33, Jed Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:16, Ethan Coon wrote:
>>
>> It's not really a stand-alone script though, so it shouldn't get the
>> hashbang or lose the extension. ?But it's not a full-fledged package of
>> libraries either. ?I don't think it should be anywher
Does that mean we can just add python utilities to that package, or do we
need to create petsc-util?
On Jul 30, 2011 12:07 PM, "Lisandro Dalcin" wrote:
> On 25 July 2011 19:33, Jed Brown wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:16, Ethan Coon wrote:
>>>
>>> It's not really a stand-alone script thoug
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
> I disagree with this completely. There's a tendency to think of everything
>> python as a package -- this is NOT a package. It has no __init__.py, it has
>> no __all__, it has no submodules, and it doesn't need any of that. It
>> simply doe
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:16, Ethan Coon wrote:
> It's not really a stand-alone script though, so it shouldn't get the
> hashbang or lose the extension. But it's not a full-fledged package of
> libraries either. I don't think it should be anywhere in the default path
> -- it's the kind of code
>
> Because directories are a useful way to organize categories of software
> (for example the bin/matlab directory has all the Matlab scripts). Why not
> just not use subdirectories in PETSc and just stick all PETSc files directly
> into the PETSc root directory?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant
On Jul 25, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
> I disagree with this completely. There's a tendency to think of everything
> python as a package -- this is NOT a package. It has no __init__.py, it has
> no __all__, it has no submod
>
> I disagree with this completely. There's a tendency to think of everything
> python as a package -- this is NOT a package. It has no __init__.py, it has
> no __all__, it has no submodules, and it doesn't need any of that. It
> simply does a one-off task -- it's bits of code to be used in a s
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 17:06 +, Matthew Knepley wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
> I disagree with this completely. There's a tendency
> to think of everything python as a package -- this is
> NOT a package. It has no
>
> On Jul 21, 2011, at 4:39 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 14:37, Barry Smith wrote:
> > Maybe pythonscripts?
> >
> > Seems to me it should be installed like a proper python package, using a
> > suitable setup.py. This usually puts it in
> > $prefix/lib/python2.x/site-pa
Brad.
As a tmp fix I have changed the directory name to pythonscripts so your
nightly tests should work again. Thanks for letting use know about the problem.
Barry
Barry-
Your debugging info helped. The problem is that PETSc now wants to install
PetscBinaryRead.py in $prefix/bin/
12 matches
Mail list logo
