Re: FEniCS still on SVN?
On Sun, 2016-04-24 at 08:46 +0000, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 12:47:15PM +0800, Drew Parsons wrote:
> > I can clean up the current core packages (apart from mshr). The
> > deprecated ones can bitrot :)
> meh.
>
> if a package is not needed anymore, deprecated or whatnot, the right
> course of action is to remove it from the archive.
> Leaving something to bitrot, without giving a shit about what happens
> to
> that package is a very good way to rise the wrath of several people,
> with no gain for you or the package.
> If those packages are not needed anymore, please file a RM bug on
> them,
Fair point, probably a good idea to do that.
> >
> > I want to set the petsc-dev dependency in dolfin to petsc3.6-dev.
> are you talking about the build-dep or the dependency of libdolfin-
> dev?
I had both in mind, since if you're managing one, you might as well
manage the other at the same time.
> >
> > python-dolfin calls on petsc-dev at execution (the dolfin scripts
> > are
> > like "just-in-time" interpreted scripts), so I think the petsc
> > invoked
> > at runtime should be consistent with the one that libdolfin1.6 is
> > compiled against (currently petsc3.6). i.e. I think we want ABI
> > consistency. Otherwise we could be in a position where petsc3.8 is
> > pulled in at runtime while libdolfin1.6 still uses petsc3.6.
> well, you named all binaries packages that are built from the same
> source, so this is very much not a issue.
>
>
> I don't think you need to specify the version in the build-dep: if
> I'm
> not having it wrong (with a very quick glance) this is a level 1
> dependency for petsc, so there is no risk of building against
> something
> that is built with a differnt petsc' ABI.
That's a good point. With library dependency autobuild, the risk of ABI
mix-up becomes minimal. Thanks for pointing that out, since that is in
place, your unversioned version should be safe. (assuming dolfin itself
will have no dramas with a future petsc3.8. But if it does, that will
be bugs which need to be fixed anyway)
Drew
Reply to: