build h5checker when not available through system installation

Comments (8)

1. 

   Frank Löffler reporter

   • changed title to dependency problem with standard hdf5 tools within HDF5 thorn
   • removed comment

   • 2012-04-16T14:22:51+00:00
2. 

   Erik Schnetter

   • changed status to open
   • removed comment

   Index: src/make.configuration.defn

   --- src/make.configuration.defn (revision 50) +++ src/make.configuration.defn (working copy) @@ -2,8 +2,12 @@

   1. Define standard HDF5 utilities ALL_UTILS += gif2h5 h52gif h5copy h5debug h5diff h5dump h5import h5jam h5ls h5mkgrp h5perf_serial h5redeploy h5repack h5repart h5stat h5unjam -#ALL_UTILS += h5check

   +# Install h5check only if it exists +ifneq ($(wildcard $(HDF5_DIR)/bin/h5check*),) +ALL_UTILS += h5check +endif +

   1. Ignore some of the utilities that we don't use, e.g. the compiler
   2. wrappers:
   3. h5c++ h5cc h5fc

   • 2012-04-16T17:58:41+00:00
3. 

   Frank Löffler reporter

   • changed title to build h5checker when not available through system installation
   • changed status to open
   • removed comment

   After applying this patch make sim-utils still complains about h5check missing. The reason for that is that h5check isn't built if I use an external HDF5 installation.

   We should build h5check when a system hdf5 library is installed but h5check is not. We either split this into a separate thorn which would make the handling kind of uniform, or would need to add a separate check for h5check within the HDF5.sh script to detect whether we need to build it, independently from whether the HDF5 library needs to be build or not.

   • 2012-04-23T11:41:45+00:00
4. 

   Erik Schnetter

   • removed comment

   What is the error message that you see when this patch is applied, and you are using a system HDF5 installation that does not provide h5check?

   This patch is supposed to check whether h5check is available, and do nothing about it if it is not available.

   • 2012-04-24T14:08:06+00:00
5. 

   Frank Löffler reporter

   • changed status to open
   • removed comment

   I noticed an error I did while applying the patch (by hand, because it was not attached as file). The patch now works, please commit.

   Another issue I noted is that in the current form, system binaries are copied into the exe/NAME/ utils directory. Should we do this? It bloats the directory without a reason (I can see).

   • 2012-04-24T14:15:53+00:00
6. 

   Frank Löffler reporter

   • removed status
   • removed comment

   • 2012-04-24T14:16:00+00:00
7. 

   Erik Schnetter

   • changed status to resolved
   • removed comment

   The reason for copying utilities is to ensure that we have a set of known-to-work utilities in a well-known spot. That means one doesn't have to look for them, load modules, set the path, etc. This is convenient especially for post-processing.

   • 2012-04-24T16:09:17+00:00
8. 

   Roland Haas

   • changed status to closed
   • edited description

   • 2019-02-21T20:20:59+00:00
9. Log in to comment