NOTE: The netcdf-hdf mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Hi Ed, [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > Looks OK for the start. We can revise it as we try it and find out > what we left out. > > On 2003.12.03 14:47 Ed Hartnett wrote: > > > > Howdy all! > > > > As I prepare the fist tarball for netcdf-4 I am musing about some > > interesting distribution requirements we have. > > > > Here's the section from the requirements (I just added the last one > > this morning.) The entire requirements document can be found as always > > at > > http://my.unidata.ucar.edu/content/software/netcdf/netcdf-4/reqs.html > > > > Distribution with both netCDF and HDF5 packages > > > > * The netCDF-4 library is distributed by both Unidata and NCSA. > > > > Sure. I'm not sure of the details, but it should be simple. > > > * The netCDF-4 library requires that HDF5 (version 1.8.0 or > > greater) be installed. > > Hmm. There is no 1.8.0! We probably need 1.6.0 or above, unless there > is something I don't know about in netCDF4. At the moment, I think that Ed's code has shims in place for working with the 1.6.x branch. Eventually, it will require features in the development trunk that will put the requirement at HDF5-1.7.x. > > * The netCDF-4 library can coexist peacefully with the netCDF-3 > > library, but both cannot be used in the same program. > > > > * Potential users can select from a number of distributions, > > depending on whether they already have netCDF-3 and/or HDF5 > > installed. Whatever the circumstance, users should be able to > > install netcdf-4 in one pass through the usual configure/make > > install/make check cycle. > > Without actually trying, I can't really comment on how this should read. > > > > > What do we all think of those requirements. Anyone object to any, or > > want to add to them? BTW, how are you compiling the code in your distribution? Are you using the 'h5cc' tool that ships with HDF5? Are you using autoconf, etc? Quincey >From owner-netcdf-hdf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 04 2003 Dec -0700 07:34:47 Message-ID: <wrxad68k5x4.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 04 Dec 2003 07:34:47 -0700 From: Ed Hartnett <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> In-Reply-To: <200312032117.hB3LHCYK033631@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: Quincey Koziol <koziol@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: distribution musings - install three libraries to get netcdf-4? Received: (from majordo@localhost) by unidata.ucar.edu (UCAR/Unidata) id hB4EYnnm004881 for netcdf-hdf-out; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:34:49 -0700 (MST) Received: from rodney.unidata.ucar.edu (rodney.unidata.ucar.edu [128.117.140.88]) by unidata.ucar.edu (UCAR/Unidata) with ESMTP id hB4EYmp2004868; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:34:48 -0700 (MST) Organization: UCAR/Unidata Keywords: 200312041434.hB4EYmp2004868 Cc: netcdf-hdf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx References: <200312032117.hB3LHCYK033631@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Lines: 17 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-netcdf-hdf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Precedence: bulk Quincey Koziol <koziol@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > BTW, how are you compiling the code in your distribution? Are you using > the 'h5cc' tool that ships with HDF5? Are you using autoconf, etc? Yes, I'm using h5cc right now, but I have had to modify the options that you-all provide to gcc. Specifically I turned off optimization, because it makes debugging harder. Perhaps you should have a debug version of h5cc? It's hard to debug code that has been compiled with -O2! I am using autoconf, automake, and will eventually use autolib. My automake stuff is working well, my autoconf stuff I've barely started on, and the autolib stuff I haven't started on yet. Ed
netcdf-hdf archives: