Re: 970529: OFFICE MEMO net

>To: "Russ Rew" <address@hidden>
>From: "Steve Mauget" <address@hidden>
>Organization: USDA
>Keywords: 199705291843.MAA11397

Steve,

>      Thanks for the reply to my e-mail. As for your suggestions about what
> the problem might be, I think your final comments about libnetcdf.a not 
> containing any fortran interfaces may be the problem. The libnetcdf.a
> library was and is in /usr/local/lib, so that wasn't the problem. When I
> invoked
> the configure script during install, the only thing I was prompted for was
> a value for FC, to which I entered:  /usr/local/bin/f90, which is our NAG
> f90 compiler. When I check in the Makefile generated by the configure
> script I see "FC = /user/local/bin/f90". So my guess is that there was a 
> problem in compiling the fortran interface.

Could the problem be as simple as a typo in the directory name?  I
notice you want it to find f90 in "/usr/...", but the configure script
apparently has "/user/...".  That extra "e" could make all the
difference. 

>     In trying to figure this problem out I'd like to squeeze more information
> out of "test".  I'm trying  to figure out how to get test to progress past the
> point
> where it is now failing, which evidently involves a problem with the
> netcdf.inc
> symbolic link in src/fortran. Do you have any idea how to fix this? 
> 
> 
> ../fortran/netcdf.inc - Too many symbolic links in path name traversal
> *** Error code 2 (bu21)

I don't understand this error message at all.  In 2.4.3, the build
process creates the netcdf.inc file in the fortran/ directory, and
doesn't create a symbolic link.

During "make test", the netcdf.inc file is copied (not linked) to the
ncgen/ directory in order to test the output of "ncgen -f", which
creates a Fortran program.  You could try deleting the netcdf.inc file
in the ncgen/ directory and recopying it from the ../fortran/netcdf.inc
file, in case it is somehow a symbolic link.  If the latter is a
symbolic link, you could delete it and recreate it in the fortran/
directory by running "make" there first.

>      Another tack I'm considering at this point is to just get rid of the
> 2.4.3
> installation and start over by downloading the 3.3 version. Do you think
> waiting for the 3.3.1 version would be a good idea?

It's up to you.  Currently I'm estimating that we'll have 3.3.1 ready
for release by the middle or end of next week, but if we run into any
unanticipated problems, that could be delayed.

--Russ