dolfin team mailing list archive

[jhoffman@xxxxxxxxxxx]

> On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 09:48:53AM +0200, jhoffman@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 12:31:09PM -0500, Anders Logg wrote:
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> >> I think we should set up both PETSc and DOLFIN to do dynamic
>> >> linking. The size of a compiled DOLFIN source tree is now 1.8GB...
>> >> Even before with PETSc linked statically, the size was around 700MB.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe we should start looking at using libtool? I don't know how to
>> >> use it, so I might need some help.
>> >>
>> >> In the meantime, I will add a new target 'demo' to make and change so
>> >> that the standard target 'all' does not compile the demo programs.
>> >> (But then all maintainers must remember to do a 'make demo' before
>> >> checking something in!)
>> >>
>> >> I will fix this after lunch and then the new version.
>> >>
>> >> /Anders
>> >>
>> >
>> > Apparently you needed to do:
>> >
>> > ./config/configure.py --with-clanguage=cxx --with-shared=1
>> >
>> > to make PETSc build shared libraries. So now the binaries are back to
>> > about 10MB a piece, which is more manageable.
>> >
>> > I also think we should start building shared libraries (using libtool
>> > seems like a good way), but it's not very high priority in my
>> > opinion. I think the "make demo" solution is better and sufficient for
>> > now.
>> >
>> >   Johan
>> >
>>
>> I agree that the 'make demo' solution would be a good idea, since we
>> seem
>> to lack sufficient 'libtool' know-how at this point.
>
> Already fixed in the new release (make demo).
>
> /Anders

Great!

/Johan

>
> _______________________________________________
> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.fenics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
>