On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
I've put a lot of time into customizing the bmake system to work with
other Debian packages and build on all arches, and BuildSystem came up
sometime after the start of the sarge "freeze" process a year ago, so I
decided to postpone using it until after sarge.
Also, I'm not very familiar with python, so learning a brand new
configuration system (as opposed to a standard one like autotools) in a
new language and getting it to work properly could take an enormous
amount of work. So I've been procrastinating. :-)
It may be helpful to you to take a look at my very primitive (and large)
package. Perhaps you could also give me tips on improving them. You can
find it at
deb http://aurora.dulci.biostat.duke.edu/~faheem/debian/ ./
deb-src http://aurora.dulci.biostat.duke.edu/~faheem/debian/ ./
apt-get source petsc
apt-get install libpetsc
It uses BuildSystem.
BTW, note that BuildSystem has problems with your build dependencies.
Specifically, all the atlas3 stuff which satisfies libblas-3.so and
liblapack-3.so does not seem to satisfy BuildSystem's requirement for
blas/lapack.
BTW, there does not seem to be any record of cxml.
I don't understand what they mean by "dynamic" libraries either. I
believe this is their mechanism for runtime loading of libraries as
needed, without the requirement of linking all needed libraries to the
binary.
I can see how this might be helpful for python, but for C(++), the
needed libraries are pretty clear at compile time. So I've ignored
this. (Also, didn't know that PETSc 2.x has python bindings...)
When you say you've ignored this, do you mean that you have switched
off the dynamic libraies, "dynamic=0", or something else?
One clearly has to do something, since the default way of making the
libraries causes problems if you move them.
At the moment it seems possible that I will be using DOLFIN
(www.fenics.org/dolfin) in my work. If this happens, I will be building
(and possibily maintaining) Debian packages for DOLFIN, and possibly
for some of the other associated libraries. In that event, I might need
your help in having these packages build against PETSc. This may not be
so easy, since some things about PETSc are non-standard. I hope that is
cool.
You mean, since some things about the Debian PETSc package are
non-standard? I'm glad to help, once I can get petsc 2.3 in.
No I meant that PETSc itself is non-standard. I assume the Debian
package will be as standard as possible, given that. :-)
Faheem.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
