dolfin team mailing list archive

[Johan Jansson <jjan@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 02:03:41PM +0200, Anders Logg wrote:

...

> Interesting. Would we still keep a structure where different "sub
> libraries" are kept in different directories (even if the sub
> libraries are not explicitly built)?

Yes, the structure would look the same, and we could keep makefiles in
the individual directories which would look pretty similar. They would
be makefile fragments which would be included in the main makefile.

> 
> One issue is with interdependencies between "sub libraries". With a
> flat Makefile, it seems we would not be able to enforce a strict
> interdependency relation between the "sub libraries". (But we don't do
> that now anyway, since we throw in the -I../etc to all libraries.)

This is an advantage in my opinion. For cases where there is a true
separation (PyDOLFIN perhaps), we can keep the recursive
structure. But otherwise it just causes trouble, like having to build
"convenience libraries". We have worked around this now, but I don't
think the dependencies are entirely correct now (and messing with
dependencies manually is something we shouldn't have to do).

> Anything we can do to simplify the build is great.
> 
> In particular, I'd like to remove the builds in pre, post and config.
> 
> /Anders

Yes, those might not be needed. But mostly I just want to know that
the dependencies are correct when I build.

  Johan