+1 to merging ufc into ffc.

I'd rather not merge in ufl (yet).

I plan to merge uflacs into ffc at a later date but not yet.

It would be nice if we then split out the compiled stuff from ffc into a
separate python module and place all python modules from ufc and ffc in a
shared src/ or site-packages/ directory, as this makes it easier to add to
python path without installation for running tests.

Martin
7. jan. 2014 23:23 skrev "Anders Logg" <[email protected]> følgende:

> On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 10:12:51PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > We’ve discussed over the past year consolidating FEniCS packages. The
> motivations are:
> >
> > - Fewer packages for users to install
> > - Less confusion over dependency versions
> > - Simpler development and testing (fewer cross-package dependencies and
> package tests that depend on other packages)
> > - Reduced burden of making releases (which will hopefully lead to more
> frequent releases)
> >
> > Now that the first FEniCS release from git/Bitbucket has been made,
> > I suggest that we start evolving towards consolidation (rather than
> > taking any radical steps). As a first step, I propose that we merge
> > FFC and UFC into one package. This doesn’t mean that FFC and UFC are
> > suddenly deeply linked, but that UFC becomes one of the implemented
> > FFC targets (and at first, the only).  Longer term, having
> > backends/targets in FFC will make the addition of new generation
> > targets easier to develop.
> >
> > Please respond with thoughts and opinions on merging FFC and UFC!
>
> I'm very positive to this idea.
>
> I think UFL could also be merged into the same project. I know there
> will be objections to this from those who only use UFL (David Ham
> objected last time I suggested this), but still think it would be
> possible to resolve this by adding an option to only install UFL,
> something like
>
> cd ufl && sudo python setup.py install
>
> Another thing to consider is Debian/Ubuntu packages. I believe some
> work will be involved there as well (to apply for new packages and
> adjust dependencies), so perhaps it would not be optimal to make many
> "small" changes to the package organization? Or is it easy? Johannes
> can comment on this.
>
> --
> Anders
> _______________________________________________
> fenics mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
>
_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
[email protected]
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics

Reply via email to