2008/7/1 Johan Hake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tuesday 01 July 2008 00:27:41 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
