dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 04:43:14PM +0200, Johan Jansson wrote:
> 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.

ok, sounds good.

> > 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).

Should we try to enforce some policy, where try to keep some structure
of which "sub library" depends on which, or is anyone in src/kernel/*
free to include anyone else in src/kernel/*?

> > 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.

ok. Let's start with removing dolfin-config. As soon as the build for
PyDOLFIN has been updated, this should be quick.

/Anders