Re: updated geometry

[Richard Jones <richard.t.jones@uconn.edu>]

I am in favor of the one-step make process that Mark proposes.  
Definitely hddsGeant3.F is an "object file" as only a few of us 
dinosaurs even know how to read it.

-Richard J.

David Lawrence wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>    Just to put in my $0.02 here. The reason we keep the hddGeant.F 
> file in the repository in addition to the XML is due mainly to my own 
> strong voiced aversion to "package creep". A few years ago, it was 
> unclear to me that we would be needing Xerces for anything other than 
> to convert the XML to fortran or C files. And, more importantly, how 
> often the common user would need to do this. As a general rule, I 
> still believe we need to set the bar very high for bringing in 3rd 
> party packages.
>
>    That being said, I  agree that Xerces has now met that threshold. 
> Actually, I decided this a few months back when I used Xerces as the 
> interface to the XML geometry access in the Hall-D reconstruction 
> code. It has actually been required for a little while now. In fact 
> Matt S. just brought up this very point 2 days ago that maybe we 
> should remove the derived files from the repository and force 
> regeneration by everyone who checks out the source. Given all of this, 
> I would support the proposal that we remove hddsGeant3.F from the 
> repository and keep only the XML source.
>
>    Someone (I think I heard Mark volunteer) will need to make the 
> build system robust enough so that this is not completely confusing to 
> novices. Specifically, if one runs make in the HDGeant directory when 
> no hddsGeant3.F file exists, it either automatically generates one by 
> running make in the ../hdds directory, or prints a clear message 
> telling the user to do this.
>
>    I am not yet at the point of supporting a similar move with the 
> HDDM system since that requires yet another package (XALAN) and the 
> HDDM XML files are modified even less often than the geometry ones.
>
>    Finally, I will restate that I believe the best way to manage the 
> 3rd party packages is through the built-in package management systems 
> that every semi-modern OS has. The class of users who merely wish to 
> run the software will clearly be served well by this and those of us 
> doing fresh installs will benefit as well. It will allow us to make as 
> complicated of dependency chain as we want without changing the 3 or 
> so lines of installation instructions for newbies.
>
>    I would be interested if others have opinions on this.
>
> Regards,
> -David