Thanks all for the input re: bundling the different interfaces; it’s clear
this is more convenient. I would argue that the benefit is not strictly to
us developers at the expense of the poor users (as somebody put it :) );
the split makes it much easier to provide support for individual
interfaces, as well as faster bug fixes as previously mentioned.
There are significant technical hurdles to recombining the interfaces into
a single project, as it was for versions 4.1.3 and prior. There may be
avenues for making distribution more transparent and easier to keep track
of from the end user point-of-view, however. I may start a new thread once
I’ve explored a couple of ideas.
Regarding the question below about binary distributions for OSX and
Windows. We provide Windows binaries because, frankly, building with Visual
Studio can be a bit of a mess, and providing the libraries packaged with
dependencies seemed like the easiest way to head off a lot of problems.
These can be downloaded here:
- http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/docs/winbin.html
I wasn’t under the impression that there was much need for OSX binary
distributions, since OSX is essentially BSD and works with autotools and/or
CMake. I know that the popular package managers homebrew and macports have
netcdf packages (which we do not maintain), and had always thought these
must be sufficient, as nobody has said otherwise. I’d be really interested
to know if these were insufficient!
Thanks all,
-Ward
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Chris Barker <chris.barker@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Gus Correa <gus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> PS - Yes, I do understand the initial thread was about
>> NetCDF3 vs NetCDF4, which is a separate discussion in itself.
>>
>
> Bringing it back ---
>
> One of the main reasons users don't use netcdf4 is that it's substantially
> harder to build (and more heavy weight). As (at least for the c libs) the
> netcdf4 libs fully support netcdf3, there really isn't any reason for all
> client code to use the netcdf4 libraries, regardless of whether they are
> actually using netcdf4 files.
>
> So anything Unidata can do to make it easier for end users to use netcdf4
> will really help:
>
> Easier to build
>
> Good binary distributions (for Window and probably OS-X anyway)
>
> ???
>
> -Chris
>
>>
>> --
>
> Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
> Oceanographer
>
> Emergency Response Division
> NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice
> 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
> Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception
>
> Chris.Barker@xxxxxxxx
>
> _______________________________________________
> netcdfgroup mailing list
> netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For list information or to unsubscribe, visit:
> http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
>
