Ed,
Sounds good to me.
I have a few questions (to everyone not to Ed only :-)
On which platforms netcdf-4 was tested?
Who will provide netcdf-4 user support, bug tracking and initial bug
investigation?
When the new HDF5 version comes out, who is responsible for testing
netcdf-4? How do we coordinate the two libraries release schedule?
I am sure that there are some other maintenance/support issues. It would
be nice if we can talk about them before the NetCDF users start to bombard
our helpdesk with email messages :-)
There are some users who use netcdf-?old? in HDF4 to read NetCDF files.
We are testing now that HDF4 can read 3.5 files. Now... what about
netcdf-4 files?
Thank you!
Elena
------------------------------------------------------------
Elena Pourmal, HDF QA, Maintenance and Support Team Leader
NCSA University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
605 E. Springfield Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820
epourmal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
(217)333-0238 (office)
(217)244-1987 (fax)
------------------------------------------------------------
On 3 Dec 2003, Ed Hartnett wrote:
>
> Howdy all!
>
> As I prepare the fist tarball for netcdf-4 I am musing about some
> interesting distribution requirements we have.
>
> Here's the section from the requirements (I just added the last one
> this morning.) The entire requirements document can be found as always
> at http://my.unidata.ucar.edu/content/software/netcdf/netcdf-4/reqs.html
>
> Distribution with both netCDF and HDF5 packages
>
> * The netCDF-4 library is distrubuted by both Unidata and NCSA.
>
> * The netCDF-4 library requires that HDF5 (version 1.8.0 or
> greater) be installed.
>
> * The netCDF-4 library can coexist peacefully with the netCDF-3
> library, but both cannot be used in the same program.
>
> * Potential users can select from a number of distributions,
> depending on whether they already have netCDF-3 and/or HDF5
> installed. Whatever the circumstance, users should be able to
> install netcdf-4 in one pass through the usual configure/make
> install/make check cycle.
>
> What do we all think of those requirements. Anyone object to any, or
> want to add to them?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
>
