dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 05:28:15PM +0100, Åsmund Ødegård wrote:
> 
> Thanks for suggestions, Anders!
> 
> On Nov 30, 2007 10:58 AM, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>     It looks really good and it also seems to work! Excellent.
> 
>     Here are some suggestions/questions for the build system.
> 
>     1. I think the formatting of the error messages etc can be improved.
> 
>     For example, when looking for PETSc, I get the following message:
> 
>       [snip]
> 
>  
> 
>     So, my specific suggestions are:
> 
>      (i)   Use "Checking for foo... yes/no" (much like autoconf)
>      (ii)  Don't include line numbers etc in output (can be written to some log
>     file)
>      (iii) Indent further messages for each package (makes it easier to read)
> 
> 
> I managed to change into something that is close to this!

Looking forward to trying it out.


>     2. It should be possible to run the build system without installing
>     simula-scons. It should be possible to add the location of
>     simula-scons in the source tree to the python path and hide it from
>     the user. I'd also prefer to move the directory simula-scons inside
>     the scons directory.
> 
> 
> By some simple namechanges, this is perfectly fine - in the next beta of this
> you will do
> 
> export PYTHONPATH=`pwd`/scons/simula-scons:$PYTHONPATH

Sounds good. The build system needs to handle both the case when the
user has simula-scons installed and the case when it's not and then
use the bundled version. Maybe at some point there could be a
try/except which tries to import simula-scons (from the system) and
otherwise picks it up from the version bundled in the source tree
(with sys.path.append("../etc").

-- 
Anders



>     3. It should not be necessary to create a separate directory for
>     pkg-config files. You could check if PKG_CONFIG_PATH is set and if so
>     use it. Otherwise, create and use a suitable directory (like
>     pkgconfig) under the scons directory.
> 
>     So the only thing a user should need to do when downloading DOLFIN
>     would be to write 'scons' (no need to install packages or settings
>     paths before).
> 
> 
> This is actually more or less present already, only that it does not work so
> well... I'll massage this a bit.


> 
> 
>     Other than that I think it looks really nice. Much cleaner than our
>     current setup with hundreds of Makefiles and config files spread all
>     around the code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 02:39:30AM +0100,  smund  deg rd wrote:
>     > Hi,
>     >
>     > I like some brave builders, curious nerds, or really anybody, to visit
>     http://
>     > fenics.org/wiki/Compiling_DOLFIN_with_SCons and follow the rough
>     instructions!
>     >
> 
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > DOLFIN-dev mailing list
>     > DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
>     > http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

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