Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
Anders Logg wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:53:34PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:Johannes Ring wrote:I would say maximalistic in terms of available Ubuntu packages (e.g. OpenMPI, PETSc, umfpack, etc), and minimalistic in terms of home-made packages (e.g. Trilinos).On Fri, August 1, 2008 13:09, Kent-Andre Mardal wrote:On fr., 2008-08-01 at 12:20 +0200, Johannes Ring wrote:On Fri, August 1, 2008 12:17, Garth N. Wells wrote:Johannes Ring wrote:Hi Jiping, I think this segfault problem must have been introduced when I added Trilinos as a dependency to the DOLFIN Ubuntu packages.Why do we have Trilinos as a dependency for the package? I don't see what this adds for the user at this stage.Well, if it doesn't add anything to the user, I can simply remove it. JohannesAgree that dolfin should not depend on trilinos. Does the dolfin package depend on PETSc ?Yes, it depends on PETSc.More general, should the dolfin package be minimalistic or maximalistic ?I thought maximalistic, but I guess this is up to others to decide.On this note, SCOTCH is package under Ubuntu 8.10. GarthI don't think it's a problem to depend on Trilinos and other "home-made" packages now that they are available from the same repository as the FEniCS packages. The packages are in the same repository and built by the same person so the Trilinos package can be trusted just as much as for example the FFC package.
Home-made packages increase the testing burden, while in the case of Trilinos not substantially affecting functionality. If at some point Trilinos provides substantial functionality, e.g. when parallel assembly and solve is supported, then it could/should be a dependency.
Also, if an aim is to eventually have fenics accepted as Debian/Ubuntu package isn't easier if as few new packages as possible are required?
Garth
Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |