On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:00:35AM +0200, Bård Skaflestad wrote: > On 25/08/15 10:52, Markus Blatt wrote: > > [Snip background] > > >I am wondering whether we should stop supporting autotools for > >downstream modules and stop creating *.la files. (I guess this is > >untested in any case). This means enforcing dune >=2.3 which comes > >with CMake. > > I have no particular preference for Autotools, so I guess we at least have > to take convenience and practicality into account. Can OPM users (on Linux) > *easily* obtain pre-built packages for Dune 2.3 on their > distributions?
Ubuntu: 2.3.1 for official Utopic Unicorn (14.10) and in OPM's PPA for Trusty Tahr (14.04) and Precise Pangolin (12.04) Debian: 2.3.1 for 8.0 (jessie) and 6.0 (wheezie9 via backports, 2.2 for official wheezy without backports OpenSuse: 2.3.1 for 13.1 and 13,2 Suse: 2.3.1 for SLE-12 Redhat: 2.2 (see http://sourceforge.net/projects/opm-project/files/packages/2013.09/redhat/5/x86_64/ ) Wondering who maintains the redhat packages... > What is the cost/benefit ratio to the OPM project to continue supporting > 2.2.x? How far away is Dune 2.4 and do we have a reasonable upgrade path to > that? I guess supporting 2.2 to 2.4 would be quite a hassle. 2.3 and 2.4 (at least for the part used in OPM itself) should be much easier. Markus -- Dr. Markus Blatt - HPC-Simulation-Software & Services http://www.dr-blatt.de Hans-Bunte-Str. 8-10, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany, USt-Id: DE279960836 Tel.: +49 (0) 160 97590858
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Opm mailing list [email protected] http://www.opm-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opm
