dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, but following a standard (configure + make install) is a good
thing and is not in conflict with having the source. What I want to do
is to download the PETSc source, then do a configure + make install
and then be able to compile things against PETSc. And if I want, I can
also look at the source.

/Anders

On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 01:32:36PM -0500, Matthew Knepley wrote:
> Barry Smith <petsc-maint@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>       Now we are into design issues, but I will chance it anyway. I think packages
> without source are silly and pointless. Open source is about having all the source
> for everything, especially in the scientific library regime. I therefore agree
> with the Gentoo philosophy much more than Debian. PETSc is already packaged the
> way I would like it packaged and is designed to work in that mould. I do not believe
> the other models work as well, and exist mostly out of inertia rather than consideration
> of the benefits and drawbacks.
> 
>        Matt
> 
> >   These are two related issues, so I have merged them.
> >
> >   I have always been uncomfortable with the "make install" model
> > with PETSc; as you could guess from our incomplete attempt to 
> > implement it with PETSc :-(. 
> >
> > I've aways wanted to have PETSc users
> > have the EXACT same experience (debugging, makefiles, rules etc) if they
> > used a "compiled" version of an "installed" version of PETSc. I never could
> > see how to do this, so I wrote a simple "make install" to pander to those
> > who want it :-).
> >
> > 1)  If "make getincludedirs" and "make getlinklibs" do not work properly for 
> > installed versions of PETSc that is a bug we need to fix! I can change the
> > install process to also copy over the top level makefile, but this does not
> > make sense because having ${INSTALL_DIR}/makefile makes no sense if 
> > ${INSTALL_DIR} is something like /usr/local! I could copy it into the bmake
> > subdirectory BUT then it is inconsistent with a "non installed" built PETSc.
> > Is there a good solution? Maybe most of what is in makefile should really
> > be in bmake/makefile?
> >
> > 2) We could keep the XXXXimpl.h files in a subdirectory of include, instead
> > of "where they belong with each component :-)" or have the "make all" and
> > "make install" make copies down to a subdirectory of include (I'm inclined to
> > do the later) so everyone can link against them in the same place.
> >
> >    What do you think? Suggestions?
> >
> >     Barry
> >
> >   Of course, this does not resolve the neverending problem of not being 
> > able to debug installed code :-(
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Johan Jansson wrote:
> >
> >> Hi!
> >> 
> >> We've implemented a PetSc preconditioner in DOLFIN, but it seems the
> >> preconditioner implementation API (pcimpl.h) isn't a public API
> >> (i.e. user code cannot see it). We've solved this by copying pcimpl.h
> >> into DOLFIN, but this is not a good solution. Could you consider
> >> making the preconditioner implementation API public?
> >> 
> >> The reason the preconditioner is implemented in DOLFIN and not in
> >> PetSc is because the preconditioner depends on DOLFIN. The idea is to
> >> solve a nonlinear system in a time-stepping method for ODEs by
> >> Newton's method with a Krylov solver preconditioned with a fixed-point
> >> solver. The fixed-point solver is part of DOLFIN. There are likely
> >> other such applications of externally implemented preconditioners.
> >> 
> >> Thank you,
> >>   Johan
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:44:47PM -0400, Faheem Mitha wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Faheem Mitha wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Anders Logg wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >>Look through the PETSc makefile and
> >> > >>see if you find the target "getincludedirs".
> >> > >>
> >> > >>In my petsc-2.2.1/makefile:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>   include ${PETSC_DIR}/bmake/common/base
> >> > >
> >> > >Yes, it's there.
> >> >
> >> > Just to clarify, this is in the sources, but not in the installed library.
> >> > You weren't expecting it to be there, were you?
> >>
> >> Yes, I was. DOLFIN needs to figure out where to find PETSc and it then
> >> uses the getincludedirs flag with make to get the correct flags.
> >>
> >> If possible, I would rather do a 'make install' in PETSc like with any
> >> other library (without needing to set PETSC_DIR to something special),
> >> but then I don't know how to get compiler flags and link libraries
> >> correctly. It would be nice to have a petsc-config script (like
> >> gtk-config, xml2-config, dolfin-config, etc) that spits out the flags.
> >
> >
> >
> 

-- 
Anders Logg
Research Assistant Professor
Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago
http://www.tti-c.org/logg/