[Developers] Test windows install procedure
johnoel at hawaii.edu
Thu Apr 18 18:28:26 PDT 2013
We should all vote on this.
I choose that the build files should set windows PATH.
Anyhow, I can fix the sh.exe issue tomorrow. Can you test?
On 4/18/13, Arni Magnusson <arnima at hafro.is> wrote:
> Altogether, setting up a temporary PATH is a small price to pay for
> building ADMB in Windows. That said, here are some further findings and
> The current makefile tree is sensitive to whether sh.exe is in the PATH or
> If sh.exe is in the PATH (there are 3 of them in my default PATH), then
> make.exe follows some Linux-like branch in the makefile tree. To study
> this in detail, see the attached 1.txt (stdout) and 2.txt (stderr) log
> files from make. As you can see in 1.txt, the make process is using
> Linux-like commands such as cp.exe and even ln.exe. As you can see in
> 2.txt, it's running into problems with the 'find' command (which works
> differently in Windows) and crashes in the middle of the build because of
> some unsupported command options.
> If I change my three sh.exe files to shh.exe, everything builds fine.
> In the GNUmakefile branches, there are clauses like "ifeq
> ($(SHELL),sh.exe)" whose purpose is to distinguish the platform.
> 1. We can just recommend using a truncated PATH for building ADMB, as is
> done in the current INSTALL.txt. It is a clear way to explain to advanced
> users what programs are required to build ADMB.
> 2. We might be able to improve the makefile tree so it does the right
> thing, even if some sh.exe are in the PATH. It would be great if users
> (like me) wouldn't have to modify their path before building ADMB. After
> all, GCC, make, flex, and sed are already in my default PATH, and this is
> true for many ADMB users interested in building it from scratch.
> 3. We can do both. Keep the truncated recommendation for now, but start
> looking into possible improvements in the makefiles, so ADMB can later be
> built with a full-fledged PATH.
More information about the Developers