Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

> From: cellml-tools-developers-bounces at cellml.org [mailto:cellml-tools-
> developers-bounces at cellml.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Miller
> > On 12/07/11 18:43, Alan Garny wrote:
> >> From: cellml-tools-developers-bounces at cellml.org
> >> [mailto:cellml-tools- developers-bounces at cellml.org] On Behalf Of
> >> Andrew Miller
> >>> On 08/07/11 12:04, Alan Garny wrote:
> >>> Having just read the minutes, I can't see any more update on the
> >>> binaries for the CellML API... Would it be possible to have an
> >>> update on what the status is on this?
> >> I am currently working on porting the CellML API to use CMake instead
> >> of Makefile / configure, as this has been planned for a while, and
> >> there is
> > no
> >> point porting the autotools based system to work on more platforms
> >> and then just throwing that work away when we move to cmake.
> >>
> >> Once the API can be built with cmake, it will be possible to work on
> > making
> >> binaries. I have a Windows build system ready to go and have updated
> >> the build system setup script to the latest MSVC. Getting 64-bit Mac
> >> support
> > is
> >> also held up on me getting access to a 64-bit Mac (although Lucian
> >> wants a PPC Mac build and to keep the x86 build, while you want
> >> x86-64, so we need to discuss which platforms we should actually
> >> support - there is more
> > support
> >> amongst people at the API to moving towards newer Mac support, rather
> >> than back to PPC); I'm not sure when that will happen.
> >
> > Do you have any idea about the timing for all of this? I should come
> > down under sometime in September/October, so it would be nice if the
> > binaries were to be ready before my visit, so that I can get a chance
> > to test them out within my Qt-C++ environment.
>
> CMake support seems to almost be there, so Linux x86 and x86-64 bit
binaries
> could be produced relatively quickly after that. MSVC10 and gcc-mingw
> shouldn't take too long either.
>
> 64-bit Mac OS X support is dependent on things outside my control (i.e.
> getting access to a 64-bit Mac), so I can't really answer for that
platform. I'd
> suggest you start with the platforms binaries are available for, and build
from
> there as more binaries become available, rather than hoping for a 'big
bang'
> change when all the binaries you want are ready.

Sure, should the worst come to the worst, then I will have no choice but do
that, but that's not the way I wish I would have to do things. With regards
to my work on OpenCOR, I want my support for all three platforms to be on
par. As you know (from the PCEnv/OpenCell days), to play catch-up can be
very time consuming, so I would rather avoid it.

So... is there really no way to get that 64-bit Mac OS X support sorted out?
It seems like you guys have been waiting for it for months now. Surely, it
can't be that difficult to get?!

Alan

---

• [cellml-dev] [cellml-discussion] ABI CellML Meeting Minutes, 6th July, 2011, Andrew Miller, 07/12/2011
  • [cellml-dev] [cellml-discussion] ABI CellML Meeting Minutes, 6th July, 2011, Lucian Smith, 07/12/2011
  • [cellml-dev] [cellml-discussion] ABI CellML Meeting Minutes, 6th July, 2011, Alan Garny, 07/12/2011
    • [cellml-dev] [cellml-discussion] ABI CellML Meeting Minutes, 6th July, 2011, Andrew Miller, 07/12/2011
      • [cellml-dev] [cellml-discussion] ABI CellML Meeting Minutes, 6th July, 2011, Alan Garny, 07/12/2011
        • [cellml-dev] [cellml-discussion] ABI CellML Meeting Minutes, 6th July, 2011, Randall Britten, 07/12/2011
          • [cellml-dev] [cellml-discussion] ABI CellML Meeting Minutes, 6th July, 2011, Alan Garny, 07/12/2011

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.