On Thu, 26 Jul 2012, Jed Brown wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Satish Balay <balay@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
> > The naming/clasification is not perfect.
> >
> > Looks like Barry tried to fix this - by adding a target
> > tests_DATAFILESPATH - but now it has both C and fortran examples in
> > it? [i.e TESTEXAMPLES_FORTRAN_NOCOMPLEX and TESTEXAMPLES_C_NOCOMPLEX]
> >
> > http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/petsc-dev/rev/c37110e4b450
> >
> > Perhaps this stuff needs an overhaul..
> >
>
> I also think it should be overhauled so that examples can be tagged when
> they are declared. I think that Python declarative syntax is easy, but it
> would be good to parse the existing makefiles to avoid needing a manual
> conversion.
>
> Is everyone okay with the test suite depending on Python?

I think python is fine - as long as the run targets still remain in
the makefile.

I am fine with having run targets, AS LONG as they are not shell. Make them Python.

Make can run python just as well as shell/

Matt

Are you saying each 'run' target in the makefile will be tagged - and
the python script will parse this tag?

Satish