Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 17:39:39 -0500 From: Quincey Koziol <koziol@hdfgroup.org> To: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bristol.ac.uk> Cc: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu>, ports@freebsd.org, thierry@freebsd.org, "maho@FreeBSD.org" <maho@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why so many versions of the port science/hdf? Message-ID: <8047C2F6-C0B9-4DA2-B810-61A4CBB63751@hdfgroup.org> In-Reply-To: <20110510135616.GA8679@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> References: <4DC937FE.7090602@missouri.edu> <20110510135616.GA8679@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 10, 2011, at 8:56 AM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > 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. Moving up to hdf5-18 would be best, if it's possible. Quincey
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8047C2F6-C0B9-4DA2-B810-61A4CBB63751>