New building machine for OpenFoam

gerbervdgraaf · October 14, 2008, 05:33

I am starting to get the picture: many MACRO's or environmental settings found in etc/, like WM_PRECISION_OPTION, will have to be included in CmakeLists.txt as options and used when configuring and building. Others, like WM_PROJECT_* and WM_COMPILER_ARCH, are probably not necessary as cmake will figure it out by itself. Experience will learn.

Of course, I did not change the environmental settings as recomended in the README during my attempts to configure and build with cmake. Because these changes are necessary for wmake et al, but not for cmake. At least that is my goal. That's also why I get stuck. But I knew this in forward and has to be happen during the development of this building machine.

I hope I will find the time to work it all out. When it is working up to an acceptable level I will be back at this forum and hope to issue the cmake configuration system somewhere (at freefoam of SF.net, for example). Of course, anybody can pick his taste, that's why it is OSS.

But there is still a very long way to go. Back to work on developing now. In case of any technical questions I'll be back here as well, of course.
Thanks to all of you for this discussion.
Gerber

andy_ · December 8, 2009, 07:47

People that want a stable operating system never put third party software in the system directories. The traditional place on linux is /usr/local for relatively small packages or /opt for larger packages where one is going to control the environment. Because openfoam has unusually strong dependencies on particular versions of compilers, qt, paraview, etc... then /opt is the most logical place for it as recommended by others earlier.

Openfoam is written by people that want to use wmake. It is perhaps not unreasonable to speculate that a degree of weirdness/awkwardness may be considered desirable by those that have written and are continuing to write the bulk of the software. Using a normal build system like cmake is an obvious thing to do, has been done before and was not picked up the openfoam developer/s.

Starting out by pulling in a direction the project does not want to go may be unwise. Of course, this is not a problem if you are performing the conversion as a learning exercise for yourself but I would suggest having few expectations beyond this. And by the way, I would suggest that the quickest and most reliable way to generate the cmake files is by modifying the wmake scripts.

elvis · December 8, 2009, 08:53

Hi Andy,

I attended the OF Stammtisch in Stuttgart. Hrv gave a Presentation there.
He said has the opportunity to go to seattle and Port OFoam on Windows with the Support of Micro$oft. He said when he has made the Port to M$, he would like the support of the Community (like the FreeFOAM guys) and give cmake a chance.

greets

elvis

andy_ · December 9, 2009, 02:39

Perhaps I have misunderstood the point you were making but how would Hrv adopting cmake for his extension to openfoam change the current situation in a significant way? Surely what is important is what is used by the main release of openfoam?

(Are we replying to a current or an old thread? Gerber's post seems to be dated in 2008 even though he joined in 2009.)

October 14, 2008, 05:33	I am starting to get the pictu	#21
gerbervdgraaf New Member Gerber van der Graaf Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Barcelona/Solsona, Catalunya (Spain) Posts: 9 Rep Power: 17	I am starting to get the picture: many MACRO's or environmental settings found in etc/, like WM_PRECISION_OPTION, will have to be included in CmakeLists.txt as options and used when configuring and building. Others, like WM_PROJECT_* and WM_COMPILER_ARCH, are probably not necessary as cmake will figure it out by itself. Experience will learn. Of course, I did not change the environmental settings as recomended in the README during my attempts to configure and build with cmake. Because these changes are necessary for wmake et al, but not for cmake. At least that is my goal. That's also why I get stuck. But I knew this in forward and has to be happen during the development of this building machine. I hope I will find the time to work it all out. When it is working up to an acceptable level I will be back at this forum and hope to issue the cmake configuration system somewhere (at freefoam of SF.net, for example). Of course, anybody can pick his taste, that's why it is OSS. But there is still a very long way to go. Back to work on developing now. In case of any technical questions I'll be back here as well, of course. Thanks to all of you for this discussion. Gerber

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How to run a solver on a machine without installation of OpenFOAM	waynezw0618	OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD	4	June 24, 2017 12:07
Experience in building OpenFOAM on LinuxIA64	Nils Smeds (Smeds)	OpenFOAM Installation	43	July 25, 2010 09:09
Building error of 15dev for OpenSUSE 111 on AMD64 machine	waynezw0618	OpenFOAM Installation	1	February 18, 2009 10:12
Building OpenFOAM on IRIX	lakeat	OpenFOAM Installation	7	July 16, 2008 07:27
Building OpenFoAm on SGI Altix 64bits	anne	OpenFOAM Installation	8	June 15, 2006 09:27

December 8, 2009, 07:47		#22
andy_ Senior Member andy Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 270 Rep Power: 17	People that want a stable operating system never put third party software in the system directories. The traditional place on linux is /usr/local for relatively small packages or /opt for larger packages where one is going to control the environment. Because openfoam has unusually strong dependencies on particular versions of compilers, qt, paraview, etc... then /opt is the most logical place for it as recommended by others earlier. Openfoam is written by people that want to use wmake. It is perhaps not unreasonable to speculate that a degree of weirdness/awkwardness may be considered desirable by those that have written and are continuing to write the bulk of the software. Using a normal build system like cmake is an obvious thing to do, has been done before and was not picked up the openfoam developer/s. Starting out by pulling in a direction the project does not want to go may be unwise. Of course, this is not a problem if you are performing the conversion as a learning exercise for yourself but I would suggest having few expectations beyond this. And by the way, I would suggest that the quickest and most reliable way to generate the cmake files is by modifying the wmake scripts.

December 8, 2009, 08:53		#23
elvis Senior Member Elvis Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sindelfingen, Germany Posts: 620 Blog Entries: 6 Rep Power: 24	Hi Andy, I attended the OF Stammtisch in Stuttgart. Hrv gave a Presentation there. He said has the opportunity to go to seattle and Port OFoam on Windows with the Support of Micro$oft. He said when he has made the Port to M$, he would like the support of the Community (like the FreeFOAM guys) and give cmake a chance. greets elvis

December 9, 2009, 02:39		#24
andy_ Senior Member andy Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 270 Rep Power: 17	Perhaps I have misunderstood the point you were making but how would Hrv adopting cmake for his extension to openfoam change the current situation in a significant way? Surely what is important is what is used by the main release of openfoam? (Are we replying to a current or an old thread? Gerber's post seems to be dated in 2008 even though he joined in 2009.)