|
[Rivet] [Rivet-svn] r2972 - trunk/data/anainfoAndy Buckley andy.buckley at ed.ac.ukFri Feb 25 11:45:11 GMT 2011
On 25/02/11 12:37, Andy Buckley wrote: > On 25/02/11 10:51, Frank Siegert wrote: >> Hi Andy, >> >>> Log: >>> Mark superseded CDF 2009 min bias note as obsolete (should we also >>> have a RivetObsolete.so?) >> >> I'd vote against many different Rivet*.so libraries. It's always >> annoying when one moves an analysis from one library (e.g. >> RivetUnvalidated) to another (e.g. RivetATLAS) because one has to >> manually clean and re-make the former, otherwise one runs into a >> duplicate error. >> >> I saw the point for the unvalidated ones at first, because we don't want >> to compile them by default. But on further thought: Shouldn't it be >> possible to simply exclude them like >> >> RivetATLASAnalyses_la_SOURCES = \ >> if ENABLE_UNVALIDATED >> ATLAS_2010_CONF_2010_049.cc >> endif >> ATLAS_2010_S8591806.cc \ >> ATLAS_2010_S8817804.cc \ >> ATLAS_2010_S8894728.cc \ >> ATLAS_2010_S8914702.cc \ >> ATLAS_2010_S8918562.cc \ >> ATLAS_2010_S8919674.cc \ >> ATLAS_2011_S8924791.cc \ >> ATLAS_2011_S8971293.cc >> >> ? > > That seems pretty sensible: rebuilding when analyses move is annoying. > Worth making the makefile a bit messy, I think! Any objections to doing > things this way from 1.5.0 onward? Aha -- I should turn on threading in my mail client! (And not write emails when chairing meetings... ;) ) Andy -- Dr Andy Buckley SUPA Advanced Research Fellow Particle Physics Experiment Group, University of Edinburgh The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
More information about the Rivet mailing list |