Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 08:53:35 +0900 (JST) From: Maho NAKATA <chat95@mac.com> To: stephen@missouri.edu Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, koziol@hdfgroup.org, thierry@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why so many versions of the port science/hdf? Message-ID: <20110511.085335.1840459916094859253.chat95@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <4DC937FE.7090602@missouri.edu> References: <4DC937FE.7090602@missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Stephen, As the maintainer of octave port, if hdf5-18 is sufficient, it's okay to replace with it. Thanks, Nakata Maho From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> Subject: Why so many versions of the port science/hdf? Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 08:05:02 -0500 > 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? > > Thanks, Stephen >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110511.085335.1840459916094859253.chat95>