All,
My grosze-worth:
> for historical reasons, deal.II has had three libraries (base, lac, and
> deal.II, the latter existing in versions for 1d, 2d, and 3d). This structure
> is also reflected in the directories in which files live.
>
> With the exception of 1/, the others are not current problems but would be
> good to have. I know how to do 4/ and a part of me has some hope that maybe
> we can find volunteers with experience in automake for 3/, which would
> immediately make 2/ happen.
1/ is a problem; I personally don't care about 2/ (though I can see the
benifits of having an installable package for some, or even many); and 4/
sounds interesting, but that is completely new to me. I think the single
library issue is a good one - I guess I don't need to emphasise more why.
> Any thoughts? Maybe even volunteers?
I would like to go back to and work on the configure sytem of deal.II for
a few of my own reasons:
(i) It's getting a bit messy in there and some parts are somewhat sketchy
(I say that not without respect for the obviously large "home-made"
efforts that have been put into constructing it);
(ii) We need to add the flag -Wno-ignored-qualifiers for gcc>4.4.0;
because the warnings I get from some of the Wrapper classes, and Boost,
are annoying to no end (they propogate through application code too).
(iii) deal.II does not compile on *BSD because of the gmake/make conflict.
I can probably fix this through automake, but there are too many caevets
in the current build sysem to make it worthwhile (No Makefile.am; though I
did it once for FreeBSD on my laptop and deal.II ran just fine there).
(iv) Checking compiler consistency across external libraries is another
issue I would like us to face. I think RPM can do this for installed
libraries, maybe we can too? I don't know now, maybe I can figure it out.
A single library is a very good idea; but it absolutely has to be a
(default) option. It would be desirable to have the choice... (maybe
not so with base/lac (see Wolfgang's comments); but with 1d, 2d, 3d,...
for sure!).
I volunteer to help out with making (1/ and) 3/ happen. Having deal.II in
a single .so/.a library is definately the way forward in my opinion; if 4/
really can do what he says, then the stronger the case for this.
Can this is to be an IdeasForTheFuture or CodeJam possibility?
It is a good time for discussion here before then...
Best,
Toby
> switch to a system that's better than emacs.
Define "good" and maybe then we can discuss what "better" means.
emacs-nox has worked for me for years... :-)
-----
Toby D. Young
Assistant Professor
Institute of Fundamental Technological Problems
Polish Academy of Sciences
ul Adolfa Pawinskiego 5b
02-106 Warsaw
Poland
www: http://www.ippt.gov.pl/~tyoung
skype: stenografia
_______________________________________________
dealii mailing list http://poisson.dealii.org/mailman/listinfo/dealii
