[MITgcm-devel] Re: [MITgcm-support] Re: MITgcm-test

[Martin Losch]

Hi,

new week, new game, new unqualified suggestions (o:
Would it be possible to check, whether netcdf is avaible at the 
genmake2 or even testreport step and then decide on the type of output 
in the verification experiments? I guess, that's what my suggestion 
last Friday was aiming at anyway.
For example, a "which ncdump" would show the ${whereever}/bin 
directory, where the netcdf utilities that come with the distribution 
are; then, if looking for netcdf.inc and libnetcdf.a in 
${whereever}/include and ${whereever}/lib fails, one can assume that 
netcdf is not installed properly, issue a comment/warning and just not 
use the mnc-package for testing with testreport on this particular 
machine until the use has created a customized build option file.

In the end, it's probably a political issue, isn't it? If you want 
users to completely switch to netcdf in the long run, anything that 
would let anyone avoid installing and using netcdf, is a bad idea.

Martin


On Sep 24, 2004, at 11:06 PM, Patrick Heimbach wrote:

> Hi Ed,
>
> Quoting Ed Hill <eh3 at MIT.EDU>:
>
>> On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 16:24, Patrick Heimbach wrote:
>>> Hi Ed,
>>>
>>> that was me (with -addr).
>>> I was going to show her how she could get
>>> to compile & run the model on her platform in 10 min,
>>> and then got surprised by the netcdf stuff.
>>>
>>> The issue is that it's quite unfortunate
>>> that one of our basic (since closest to real application)
>>> setups is now failing on all platforms that don't
>>> have netcf installed.
>>> I would opt to use a less high-profile verif. for this (e.g. exp2).
>>
>>
>> Hi Patrick,
>>
>> Since this is a new user, why not show her how to install NetCDF and
>> then she'll have output thats easier to understand?  I mean, its *so*
>> easy to do!
>>
>> Or point her towards the MITgcm-support list and we'll gladly walk her
>> through the install process.
>>
>> Ed
>
> I already did that, and she already downloaded the rpm's for her RH9.
> But I still think that this misses the point of using
> something (currently) non-standard for a "high-profile"
> verification. Just my opinion...
>
> -Patrick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://dev.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel