dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 06:08:04AM -0500, Matthew Knepley wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 3:13 AM, Ilmar Wilbers <ilmarw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > This issue keeps coming up again and again.
> >
> > The question is whether to use PETSC_TS_LIB or not. I think the last
> > email on this subject is this one:
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.mathematics.fenics.dolfin/2124
> 
> 1) PETSc ONLY modifies a library to fix bugs which the maintainers refuse to
>     fix,so you really should not be using an unmodified version.
> 
> 2) I think we are fairly fast on updating to the latest version, and
> we always do
>     it if someone asks.
> 
>    Matt

Yes, but even so it's not a good idea that DOLFIN must depend on the
exact versions of libraries that PETSc chooses (however good that
reason may be).

Say we have the following situation:

  A depends on B and C
  B depends on C'

where C' is a modified version of C. Then we shouldn't need to require
that A depends on C'.

To be precise, we may take

  A  = DOLFIN
  B  = PETSc
  C  = UMFPACK in Ubuntu
  C' = UMFPACK modified by PETSc

DOLFIN should be able to depend on C and not on C'.

This should all work fine as long as PETSc is built with

  --with-shared=1

because then there is a mechanism for resolving the dependencies.

On the other hand, if PETSc is built with static libraries, then there
is no way to resolve this, other than forcing DOLFIN to use the same
libraries as PETSc. Right?

-- 
Anders

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature