Feature 2643 generic install #2657
Conversation
| export USE_MET_TAR_FILE=FALSE | ||
|
|
||
| #If you've already compiled these and don't need to compile them again, set the following | ||
| # If you've already used the script to compile these libaries and don't need to |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just checking that I'm interpreting this correctly: if a user already has the libraries installed, they can leave the statements commented out, ONLY IF they're installed in the {EXTERNAL_LIBS} location. Otherwise, if they're installed somewhere else the user will need to uncomment the line and provide the correct path.
What should be done if the libraries aren't installed? Leave them commented out?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What should be done if the libraries aren't installed? Leave them commented out?
Yes.
if a user already has the libraries installed, they can leave the statements commented out, ONLY IF they're installed in the {EXTERNAL_LIBS} location.
If the libraries are commented out, the script will always attempt build the libraries in the external_libs directory. If the libraries are installed somewhere other than the external_libs directory and the user would like to use those libraries, they will want to uncomment the line and provide the path. If the libraries are installed in the external_libs directory and the user would like to use those libraries, they will want to uncomment the line and leave it as-is. If the libraries are not installed and the user would like the script to install them, they should leave the lines commented out.
Phew, that's kind of a mouthful, let me try to say it better:
Uncomment the external library variables if the libraries are installed in any location and the user would like to make use of those pre-installed libraries. If the libraries are in the external_libs dir, uncomment and do nothing. If the libraries are not in the external_libs dir, uncomment and change the paths to the appropriate location.
Leave the external library variables commented out if the user would like the library/libraries installed in the external_libs subdirectory.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That clears it up a bit, thanks. Given that truth, I would suggest a slight change to the wording to reflect closer to what you've just said,
If users have already installed these libraries and would like to make use of them, uncomment out the export statements. If those pre-existing libraries are in the external_libs directory, no further edits need occur; however, users that have the pre-existing libraries not in the external_libs directory will need to update the paths to the appropriate location.
Does that convey the necessary information well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@j-opatz, yes that conveys the necessary information well. Thank you for simplifying it! I appreciate it!
I made one slight change to that wording the in the update to the documentation. Instead of "no further edits need occur", I said, "no further edits are needed". If you prefer the original wording that is fine, and please feel free to change it.
|
@j-opatz Thanks so much for the thorough review and feedback! |
Expected Differences
Do these changes introduce new tools, command line arguments, or configuration file options? [No]
If yes, please describe:
Do these changes modify the structure of existing or add new output data types (e.g. statistic line types or NetCDF variables)? [Yes or No]
If yes, please describe:
Pull Request Testing
Describe testing already performed for these changes:
I ran a test installation on seneca.
Recommend testing for the reviewer(s) to perform, including the location of input datasets, and any additional instructions:
It would be great if you had time to also run through a test installation using this file, however, if you don't have time, that is ok too. If you do run through, you'll need to change the MET_TARBALL to be v11.1.0.tar.gz.
Do these changes include sufficient documentation updates, ensuring that no errors or warnings exist in the build of the documentation? [Yes]
Do these changes include sufficient testing updates? [Yes]
Will this PR result in changes to the test suite? [No]
If yes, describe the new output and/or changes to the existing output:
Please complete this pull request review by [When it is convenient for you].
Pull Request Checklist
See the METplus Workflow for details.
Select: Reviewer(s)
Select: Organization level software support Project or Repository level development cycle Project
Select: Milestone as the version that will include these changes