[MITgcm-devel] rdmnc.m

[Martin Losch]

Hi,
is it possible that rdmnc.m does not work on Matlab 6.1?

I get complains about expressions such as
nc.('MITgcm_mnc_ver')
nc.(char(attr))
etc.
I have a work-around using eval([ ]), but I don't know if you want 
something like that in the repository.
Martin

On Sep 27, 2004, at 3:31 PM, Alistair Adcroft wrote:

> Ed,
>
> Martin's right. netcdf should not be enabled if it isn't available. 
> It's not good enough to say everyone should install it since it isn't 
> always possible. Can you modify genmake2 to intelligently configure 
> mnc appropriately?
>
> A.
>
> Martin Losch wrote:
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> MITgcm-devel mailing list
>> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
>> http://dev.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
>
>
> -- 
> Dr Alistair Adcroft            http://www.mit.edu/~adcroft
> MIT Climate Modeling Initiative        tel: (617) 253-5938
> EAPS 54-1624,  77 Massachusetts Ave,  Cambridge,  MA,  USA
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://dev.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel