dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Faheem,

are you still working on Debian packages of PETSc and DOLFIN?
Can you remind me of any outstanding issues you have with DOLFIN
so I can assist with getting the packages ready?

/Anders

On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 09:02:44PM -0400, Faheem Mitha wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Johan Jansson wrote:
> 
> >On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 03:41:11PM -0400, Faheem Mitha wrote:
> 
> >>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Johan Jansson wrote:
> 
> >>>I'm not sure how to resolve this. It looks to be related to the issue
> >>>of implicit dependencies which you talk about below, but it's actually
> >>>separate. DOLFIN could have determined on its own to use the flags
> >>>"-L/usr/lib/mpich/lib -lmpich", which would still have led to link
> >>>errors when installing lam4-dev.
> >>
> >>I don't understand. Why is it necesary for DOLFIN to use the alternatives
> >>system at all? If it is using MPICH libraries explicitly everywhere, I
> >>don't see the problem, and from what I understand, that is what it is
> >>doing.
> >>
> >>Please elaborate.
> >>
> >No, the library path is explicit while the include path is the one
> >provided by the alternatives system. I'm not sure why both aren't
> >discovered in the same way, but it seems PETSc provides the link path
> >but not the include path. Still, the alternatives system should
> >guarantee that the different alternatives provided are
> >interchangeable, and in this case they're not, since they break
> >compilation.
> 
> I still don't understand. Why don't you specify the include path 
> explicitly? And what does PETSc have to do with it? We are talking about 
> DOLFIN here, right?
> 
>                                                              Faheem.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.fenics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
> 

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