dolfin team mailing list archive

["Martin Sandve Alnæs" <martinal@xxxxxxxxx>]

2008/7/1 Johan Hake <hake@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tuesday 01 July 2008 00:27:41 buildbot@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> The Buildbot has detected a new failure of linux_32.
>> Full details are available at:
>>  http://fenics.org:8010/dolfin/linux_32/builds/459
>>
>> Buildbot URL: http://fenics.org:8010/dolfin/
>>
>> Buildslave for this Build: x86-linux
>>
>> Build Reason:
>> Build Source Stamp: HEAD
>> Blamelist: Anders Logg,Johan Hake
>>
>> BUILD FAILED: failed test
>
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>  File "./demo.py", line 72, in <module>
>    coefficients = compile_functions(file_string,mesh)
>
> File "/home/buildbot/local/tmp/lib/python2.5/site-packages/dolfin/compile_functions.py",
> line 269, in compile_functions
>    functions = compile_function_code(expressions, mesh)
>
> File "/home/buildbot/local/tmp/lib/python2.5/site-packages/dolfin/compile_functions.py",
> line 198, in compile_function_code
>    (includes, flags, libraries, libdirs) =
> instant.header_and_libs_from_pkgconfig("dolfin")
>  File "/home/buildbot/local/lib/python2.5/site-packages/instant.py", line
> 955, in header_and_libs_from_pkgconfig
>    raise OSError("The pkg-config file %s does not exist" % pack)
> OSError: The pkg-config file dolfin does not exist
>
> So the buildbot complains that it does not have acces to dolfin.pc. Is this
> file not installed at the buildbot, or maybe more likely something went wrong
> during linking?
>
> Should we remove the demo untill we have come back from vacation and can dig
> into this more whole hearted, or is it worth while to have it included?
>
> Johan

This configuration code in compile_functions is rather experimental. I
was actually expecting it to break somewhere...

--
Martin