On 2014-01-28 18:26, Sean Farley wrote:
[email protected] writes:
On 2014-01-27 15:41, Marie E. Rognes wrote:
On 01/08/2014 01:07 PM, Garth N. Wells wrote:
I'd suggest that FFC and UFC keep their own config/build systems
(with
the C code that crept into FFC being cleaned out), and have a
top-level config/build script for installing both packages and
running
tests on both packages.
With uflacs eventually being merged into FFC, that will leave us
with:
- UFL
- FIAT
- FFC + backends
- Instant
- DOLFIN
The above sounds good to me. Any obstacles left?
I'm wondering if there are any issues from a packaging perspective
(Debian, MacPorts, etc) if FFC and UFC use different
build/installation
systems? If this is an issue, we could experiment with git subtree to
bring FFC and UFC into one repo. My preference is still for a single
'project' as originally proposed.
There shouldn't be any problem from a packaging perspective. For
example, in MacPorts a port can specify that it is obsolete and has
been
replaced by another port. The obsolete port then gets deleted after
about a year or so.
My concern is not so much removing a package, but if a single package
requires two different build systems, e.g. CMake and Python distutils.
Garth
_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
[email protected]
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
