On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:00:08PM +0100, Chris Richardson wrote: > On 16/10/2013 09:25, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >Does anyone have an opinion on keeping or removing CGAL from DOLFIN? > >Below are some pros and cons: > > > >- CGAL makes DOLFIN slow to build and builds use a lot of memory. > >- CGAL is unpredictable in throwing errors (predictable in that it > >will throw cryptic errors, unpredictable when or with which compiler). > >- CGAL is difficult to understand and the latest version has very > >cryptic interface changes. > >- Almost all of the random DOLFIN buildbot failures are due to CGAL > >mesh generation failures. > > > >+ CGAL provides mesh generation for a variety of simple shape > >combinations (the DOLFIN interface to CGAL is not rich enough for > >anything serious). > > Agreed. Anyone serious will make their mesh independently, so CGAL > is really just an annoying toy in this context... (!)
That may be true, but simple also has a use. It's an optional dependency, so why is it a big problem? -- Anders _______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
