On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 08:51:53PM +0200, Johan Hake wrote: > On Sunday 27 September 2009 20:18:07 Garth N. Wells wrote: > > Johan Hake wrote: > > > On Sunday 27 September 2009 19:49:09 Garth N. Wells wrote: > > >> Where's the appropriate place in the build system to test for the > > >> version number of external libraries? Is it in dolfin/SConscript (using > > >> the simula-scons function 'checkVersion')? > > > > > > I do not think we have any defined sections in SConstruct/SConscript > > > where this should be done. We have used checkVersion to check for the > > > swig version some years ago... It is still there as out-commented code in > > > the SConscript file. > > > > > > I think the function just compare a version string with another handed > > > version string, where the numbers are delimited by '.'. > > > > > > Aren't there any version checks done in the pkg-config generator files? > > > > No, but I guess that's not the place to do it since they are unrelated > > to DOLFIN and just produce a foo.pc file. > > > > I guest the right way is to use 'pkg-config --version foo.pc' rather > > than checkVersion. > > Again, checkVersion is just a function that check if a version string is > larger or equal than a passed version string. So the test might look something > like this: > > foo_version = getoutput("pkg-config --version foo.pc") > if scons.checkVersion(foo_version,"3.0.0"): > raise Error > > > > Still, I don't know where this check is best performed. > > Not sure either. I added an extensive check for the SWIG version in > SConscript. I have never felt good about that piece of code... > > With the present state of the build system it is not easy to answer questions > like this. However it would be nice to add some functionality to the scons.cfg > file. Instead of passing a list of strings, stating the dependencies we pass a > dict. > > Something like: > > OptDependencies = {'petsc':'3.0.0', > 'slepc':'2.3.3': > 'foo':None, > ...} > > The checks could then be done in the simula-scons library, when the > dependencies are checked for. > > > My motivation for this is to require PETSc >= 3 so the that PETsc > > wrappers can cleaned up. > > Yes, I just saw your blueprint :)
Is there any way to subscribe dolfin-dev to updates of blueprints? -- Anders
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list DOLFIN-dev@fenics.org http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev