NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
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/ >
netcdfgroup archives: