[email protected] writes: > On 2014-01-27 15:41, Marie E. Rognes wrote: >> On 01/08/2014 01:07 PM, Garth N. Wells wrote: >>> I'd suggest that FFC and UFC keep their own config/build systems (with >>> the C code that crept into FFC being cleaned out), and have a >>> top-level config/build script for installing both packages and running >>> tests on both packages. >>> >>> With uflacs eventually being merged into FFC, that will leave us with: >>> >>> - UFL >>> - FIAT >>> - FFC + backends >>> - Instant >>> - DOLFIN >> >> The above sounds good to me. Any obstacles left? >> > > I'm wondering if there are any issues from a packaging perspective > (Debian, MacPorts, etc) if FFC and UFC use different build/installation > systems? If this is an issue, we could experiment with git subtree to > bring FFC and UFC into one repo. My preference is still for a single > 'project' as originally proposed.
There shouldn't be any problem from a packaging perspective. For example, in MacPorts a port can specify that it is obsolete and has been replaced by another port. The obsolete port then gets deleted after about a year or so. _______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
