Yes, we likely need a couple of different variants. To begin with, I think the main focus should be on the kitchen sink variant to get something that is as close to foolproof as possible for users.
Note that the current version does not (as promised) build from master. I made a mistake in how hashdist decides which changesets to use from git. So the dev version currently builds the stable predefined version. Fix in progress.. -- Anders Wed Dec 10 2014 at 5:34:42 PM skrev Martin Sandve Alnæs <[email protected] >: > Hashdist is not like any package manager. It doesn't only build > packages, but also manages entire stacks of packages with particular > versions of each living side by side. This allows reproducible stacks if > used right, as well as variations of stacks without rebuilding more than > the stack diffs. When using anything outside of the hashdist stack, > reproducibility may be lost. Pragmatic reasons compel the use of e.g. > system compilers, and IMO using system python as well is best for most > linux users. > > I think we need more than one install script. In particular, the kitchen > sink variant which builds e.g. python and numpy etc, and minimal variants > that use system installed python etc. I'd like a variant that doesn't > install fenics so I can install master/next/wip branches myself in another > directory. Of course this means maintenance of stack variants for different > platforms, similar to the dorsal platform scripts. > > Martin > 10. des. 2014 17:10 skrev "Garth N. Wells" <[email protected]>: > >> >> >> On Wed, 10 Dec, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> ok, so is there a limited set of Python packages that we could agree on? >>> >>> I assume numpy is already included. What about matplotlib? >>> >> >> A package manager should only install dependencies; user should install >> other packages independently, i.e. like Debian/Ubuntu 'recommended' and >> 'suggested' packages. >> >> Garth >> >> Wed Dec 10 2014 at 12:05:38 PM skrev Johannes Ring <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > Good points. >>>> > >>>> > iPython seems like a good thing to include. >>>> > >>>> > It would be good to make the system Python libraries visible (but >>>> after >>>> > hashdist in the search path) but I don't know how to automatically >>>> extract >>>> > the correct path to the system Python libraries. >>>> > >>>> > I think Johannes knows this better than I. >>>> >>>> If we want to use system Python modules, then I don't think we should >>>> build our own Python. >>>> >>>> Johannes >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> fenics mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics >> >
_______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
