Hi Fred,
Am Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:51:22 +0000
schrieb PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel
<frederic-emmanuel.picca@synchrotron-soleil.fr>:
> > Now I'm wondering how to split this into binary packages. From a
> > user standpoint, I think it would make sense to have:
> > * python{,3}-bornagain, which would bring everything needed for
> > using BornAgain from python{,3}, but which does not pull in the
> > GUI. This package would be useful e.g. for using BornAgain on a
> > remote machine like a compute server.
>
> the name of the python modules is bornagain ?
Yes.
>
> python[3]-bornagain.<gui module name> if you really want to avoid
> bringing all the gui part.
The GUI is not written in python, so the name of the GUI package would
not have python in its name.
>
> What is the size of all this ?
It is not huge, but still sizeable, all in all it is about 5 megabytes
compiled and stripped. I mostly want to split bornagain into multiple
packages because I for example would like to install bornagain on a
server where I only need the python bindings and avoiding a dependency
on an Xserver and qt would be nice.
>
> > So, my question is basically:
> > What binary packages make sense, how would I split bornagain into
> > several packages to support both the python workflow as well as GUI
> > usage. And: how much work would it be to support C++ usage as
> > well and what additional package would I need for that?
>
> Maybe you should staticaly link the C++ library into the
> python-modules if you do not want to provide and maintain the c++
> library packages for now.
>
> Is bornagain just python scripts ?
Nope, the GUI is written in C++ almost entirely and the python part is
just a thin layer in python on top of the C++ libraries. I think I can't
statically link because the libraries are used by the python bindings
as well as the GUI.
Thanks + Cheers
Mika
--
Attachment:
pgp2SbSSZrxY1.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP