Re: [Fwd: does not compile, was Re: BRAT 1.11.2 in CVS]

From: Christian Holm Christensen (cholm@hehi03.nbi.dk)
Date: Wed Oct 04 2000 - 07:15:27 EDT

  • Next message: Konstantin Olchanski: "Re: [Fwd: does not compile, was Re: BRAT 1.11.2 in CVS]"

    Hi BRATs,
    
    On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 11:09:36 +0200
    "I. G. Bearden" <bearden@alf.nbi.dk> wrote
    concerning ": [Fwd: does not compile, was Re: BRAT 1.11.2  in CVS]":
    > 
    > >> The current CVS snapshot does not compile. There is only one error,
    > >> present in almost all files, "missing TObjArray::SetOwner ool_t &)".
    > >>
    > >> The ROOT used to build /opt/brahms/brat/dev
    > >> is (see the -I paths below) /opt/brahms/root/pro, which points
    > >> to root_v2.24.04.
    > >
    > > I have compiled BRAT-1-11-2 with no problems (well, at least not yet,
    > > but it is still early in the day!).
    > > I compiled against ROOT v.2.25.03 (which, as I understand it is *the*
    > > version of ROOT these days.
    
    Ian is right, and I realised my mistake immediately - sorry. I believe
    that TObjArray::SetOwner(Bool_t) isn't avaliable before ROOT 2.25/03
    (but I have to check the release notes for that).  
    
    I've made the implementation of BrEventNode::SetOwner(Bool_t)
    conditional on the ROOT version it's compiled with. Please note, that
    the method BrEventNode::SetOwner(Bool_t) still exists if you compiled
    BRAT with something before ROOT 2.25/03, but is a stub (does
    nothing). Also I introduced BrDataTable::SetOwner(Bool_t) with the
    same features. 
    
    All changes checked in, no tag. I builded BRAT using ROOT 2.24/02 so
    it should be ok. 
    
    Oh, and Kris, I still get the warnings:
    
      connect: Connection refused at /afs/rhic/brahms/BRAHMS_CVS/CVSROOT/dolog.pl line 280.
    
    when I commit to CVS from NBI. 
    
    As to the ROOT 2.25/03 being "*the* version of ROOT these days" Ian is
    right if he's taking about ROOT, but not so in BRAHMS - yet. Flemming,
    Kris, when will we upgrade? 
    
    And now to something somthing completly different ... No 1 ... A Larch
    (sorry - couldn't resist). Does anyone what the status of AFS on Linux
    is? In particular, how does Redhat 6.1/6.2 fare with AFS? I believe
    there's a fix for the SMP problem, but a part from that, is there any
    problems? And does anyone know _when_ IBM will release "IBM AFS" in
    OpneSource? (there a almost delayed a month now). Thanks for any
    info. 
    
    Yours, 
    
    Christian  -----------------------------------------------------------
    Holm Christensen                             Phone:  (+45) 35 35 96 91 
      Sankt Hansgade 23, 1. th.                  Office: (+45) 353  25 305 
      DK-2200 Copenhagen N                       Web:    www.nbi.dk/~cholm    
      Denmark                                    Email:       cholm@nbi.dk
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 04 2000 - 07:15:51 EDT