Re: fresh checkout and compile

["Mark M. Ito" <marki@jlab.org>]

Thanks Dave. You saved my Saturday. And I do like the solution.

David Lawrence wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
>    The simplest way to handle this (one can debate if it's the best) 
> is to simply add the proper sequencing to the existing mechanism in 
> the top level Makefile. Namely, add the libraries/include and 
> programs/Utilities/hddm to the DIRS variable before the libraries 
> directory is added.
>
>    It turns out there were a couple of other hiccups though that 
> needed to be fixed for this specific case:
>
> 1. The hddm-c program was installed into $(OSNAME) rather than 
> $(BMS_OSNAME)
> 2. The Makefile in libraries/HDDM assumed hddm-c was already in your 
> path instead of
>   explicitly pointing to the one from the current build (a potential 
> problem too if hddm-c
>   ever changed and you have hddm-c from another build in your path).
>
> I've gone ahead and made all of these changes and checked them in. It 
> seems to build a fresh checkout fine for me now so hopefully it will 
> work for everyone else giving Mark a little breathing room to 
> implement a more ambitious, longer term solution as he sees fit.
>
> Regards,
> -David
>
> Ryan Mitchell wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> Thanks for looking at this.  I see the chicken and egg problem.  Of 
>> course having all this done automatically (or having the HDDM and 
>> HDDS packages separated out) would be ideal, but having the user take 
>> a few extra steps isn't absolutely terrible either, as long as its 
>> documented, imo.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ryan
>>
>>
>> On May 29, 2009, at 9:11 PM, Mark M. Ito wrote:
>>
>>> Ryan,
>>>
>>> You are quite right; one should not have to struggle as you did.
>>>
>>> This "feature" was introduced by me, I am sorry to say.  I made the 
>>> switch to having event.xml be the authoritative file. Unfortunately, 
>>> this introduces a two-level chicken and egg problem. Level 1: you 
>>> need to build hddm-c on the programs side before you do a make on 
>>> the libraries side in HDDM. And level 2: you need to do a make in 
>>> the include directory on the libraries side in the include directory 
>>> before you do the aforementioned make on the programs side. Suffice 
>>> it to say the current make system was not designed to deal with an 
>>> authoritative event.xml.
>>>
>>> By the way, your solution is quite reasonable. Doing all this 
>>> automatically is on my list. You just moved it to the top. Probably 
>>> should have been there before.
>>>
>>> I should say that I think both HDDM and HDDS should perhaps (in the 
>>> future) be broken out of our standard tree and stand independently. 
>>> They are really tools, and have no particular knowledge of GlueX or 
>>> Hall D or any other particular geometry or data format. That way 
>>> these tools could be built first (like we build ROOT and CERNLIB) 
>>> and the GlueX-specific build items could go ahead and use them. So, 
>>> for example, the hddm-c binary would exist before the GlueX build 
>>> starts.
>>>
>>> -- Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ryan Mitchell wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I've been running into some problems when I do a fresh checkout and 
>>>> compile of the Hall-D software.  Following the instructions online 
>>>> I do...
>>>>
>>>> >  cd $HALLD_HOME
>>>> >  svn co https://halldsvn.jlab.org/repos/trunk/src
>>>> >  svn co https://halldsvn.jlab.org/repos/trunk/calib
>>>> >  cd $HALLD_HOME/src
>>>> >  make
>>>>
>>>> The compilation makes it all the way to the librararies/HDDM 
>>>> directory before it complains about not being able to find the 
>>>> hddm-c application.
>>>>
>>>> I can get things to work eventually.  For example:
>>>>
>>>> >  cd $HALLD_HOME/include
>>>> >  ln -s $HALLD_HOME/src/libraries/include/*.h .
>>>> >  cd $HALLD_HOME/src/programs/Utilities/
>>>> >  make
>>>> >  setenv PATH $HALLD_HOME/src/programs/Utilities/hddm/\:$PATH
>>>> >  cd $HALLD_HOME/src
>>>> >  make
>>>>
>>>> but it would be nice (and less frustrating) if the user (me, for 
>>>> example) didn't have to struggle this much.  Is there an expert who 
>>>> could take a look? Did I do something wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Ryan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>