FEniCS Plasticity

building problems running scons install

Asked by kassbohm

I would like to use fenics-plasticity (f-p) with a fresh install of DOLFIN with DORSAL. Can I do this? Or do I need an older install of DOLFIN etc. ?

In your README I read:
"
For the development version of FEniCS plasticity the changesets of all
dependencies for which the library compiles successfully against are given
below.

output from 'bzr revno'
* DOLFIN changeset: 6714
"

Does this mean, that I need a specific version of DOLFIN etc. to make f-p work? If yes: What's the procedure to get those revisions/changesets and install them?

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Solved
For:
FEniCS Plasticity Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Solved by:
kassbohm
Solved:
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
Kristian B. Ølgaard (k.b.oelgaard) said : 		#1

That depends if you got the development version of DOLFIN or the latest stable release.

If you installed the development version of DOLFIN, then you also need the development version of FEniCS Plasticity

bzr branch lp:fenics-plasticity

Chances are though, that it will not compile against the development version of DOLFIN. If it fails to compile, either update the FEniCS Plasticity code to reflect the interface changes in DOLFIN or enter the source directory of each of the FEniCS dependencies and revert the code to the specified changeset e.g. in the DOLFIN source tree:

bzr revert -r 6714

(Fixing FEniCS Plasticity is the preferred solution of course... and patches are welcome)

Another possibility is to get the latest stable release of FEniCS via Dorsal and download the FEniCS plasticity version 1.0.0 tar ball, which should work.

Revision history for this message
kassbohm (kassbohm) said : 		#2

Thanks for answering.

I installed with Dorsal. How do you know, that I then need the 1.0.0 tarball of plasticity?

Are the changeset numbers specified in the plasticity-README
"
* DOLFIN changeset: 6714
* FFC changeset: 1751
* FIAT changeset: 182
* UFC changeset: 353
* UFL changeset: 1404
"
those of the stable FEniCS-release?

Revision history for this message
Kristian B. Ølgaard (k.b.oelgaard) said : 		#3

If you configure Dorsal to build a stable version of FEniCS, it should work with the 1.0.0 plasticity tarball.

Else, you have a development build of FEniCS and you should use the development version of plasticity.

The changeset numbers in the README refers to some point between FEniCS stable and the development version, so you need to revert the FEniCS dev to these changesets, OR update the plasticity dev code to work with the FEniCS tip.

Revision history for this message
kassbohm (kassbohm) said : 		#4

I understand. I am just wondering, why the 1.0.0-plasticity-README says:

* DOLFIN v. 1.0.0
* FFC v. 1.0.0
* FIAT v. 1.0.0
* UFC v. 2.0.5
* UFL v. 1.0.0

whereas the 1.0.0-dorsal-Changelog says:

* Updated to 1.0.0 versions all fenics packages.

So from the Changelog I was expecting UFC v 1.0.0 as well... Anyway, I guess, that's fine.

Just trying to continue...

Thanks again.

Revision history for this message
Kristian B. Ølgaard (k.b.oelgaard) said : 		#5

On 25 September 2012 09:11, Sven Kaßbohm
<email address hidden> wrote:
> Question #208986 on FEniCS Plasticity changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/fenics-plasticity/+question/208986
>
> Status: Answered => Solved
>
> Sven Kaßbohm confirmed that the question is solved:
> I understand. I am just wondering, why the 1.0.0-plasticity-README says:
>
> * DOLFIN v. 1.0.0
> * FFC v. 1.0.0
> * FIAT v. 1.0.0
> * UFC v. 2.0.5
> * UFL v. 1.0.0
>
> whereas the 1.0.0-dorsal-Changelog says:
>
> * Updated to 1.0.0 versions all fenics packages.
>
> So from the Changelog I was expecting UFC v 1.0.0 as well... Anyway, I
> guess, that's fine.

I see how that is confusing.
The UFC version has always 'been ahead' of the other component
numbers, and it is of course not possible to set it to 1.0 for
consistency.
However, as UFC is meant to provide a stable interface, updates are
less frequent compared to the other components and therefore
the version numbers of the other components will most likely 'catch
up' in the future.

> Just trying to continue...
>
> Thanks again.
>
> --
> You received this question notification because you are a direct
> subscriber of the question.