On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 11:24:33AM -0800, Johan Hake wrote: > On Wednesday December 1 2010 11:20:13 Anders Logg wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 11:17:36AM -0800, Johan Hake wrote: > > > On Wednesday December 1 2010 08:24:27 Johan Hake wrote: > > > > On Tuesday November 30 2010 22:55:29 Anders Logg wrote: > > > > > Perhaps we should create a simple script dolfin-version that prints > > > > > the current version to make it easy to check? > > > > > > > > I thought of that too. > > > > > > > > Maybee we should let CMake produce a script: > > > > dolfin-version > > > > > > > > and install it. Using the information in the CMake variable > > > > DOLFIN_VERSION? > > > > > > Done. > > > > Great. > > > > > I also changed the present version, as set in the CMakeLists.txt to > > > 0.9.9+. > > > > > > This is now reflected in naming of the shared library: > > > libdolfin.so.0.9.9+ > > > > > > Is it a problem that it does not end with a number? > > > > I think there was a problem with this at some point. I think I've > > tried it before, but we'll see. If something suddenly fails to link, > > we know why... > > If it fails maybe we can create another variable without the '+' for the > shared library version?
Yes, sounds good (unless it relies on some CMAKE mechanism that requires it to be the same variable). -- Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
