Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:56:17 +0100 From: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bristol.ac.uk> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, koziol@hdfgroup.org, thierry@freebsd.org, "maho@FreeBSD.org" <maho@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why so many versions of the port science/hdf? Message-ID: <20110510135616.GA8679@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <4DC937FE.7090602@missouri.edu> References: <4DC937FE.7090602@missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 08:05:02AM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > Why are there three versions of science/hdf in the ports? > > This is causing problems for me when I try to build the port > octave-forge. As dependencies, it calls in the octave port (which > currently defaults to hdf5), the cgnslib port (which uses hdf5-18), and > the opendx port (which uses hdf). All of these ports function perfectly > well with hdf5.18, because all the different versions of hdf conflict > with each other. > > If we could settle on using hdf5-18 throughout, that would be great. (I > currently maintain opendx, so that would be something I can fix.) > > Are there ports that need hdf but don't build with hdf5-18? science/paraview is currently built with hdf5. Perhaps you should ask its maintainer, devel@stasyan.com, whether hdf5-18 is a good idea. -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110510135616.GA8679>