[Pkg-grass-general] debian-gis unofficial?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I had a dream. And the dream was:
apt-get install grass qgis mapserver postgis
I do not agree with the view of buiding non-official debian repository. My
hope is to have debian-gis, which means that the normal user should not worry
about uncertain (and potentially dangerous) sources, etc.
After all, power users can always install these programs from source, or using
the grass tgz, etc. So better work for the "good" solution, ie official
repository.
Please consider the user's point of view.
All the best.
pc
At 20:07, giovedì 30 settembre 2004, Fred McDavid has probably written:
> > One question I do have is are we aiming to get a whole bunch of packages
> > into the official Debian channel or are we also interested in maintaining
> > unofficial debian packages distributed through our own repository for
> > packages to big, non-standard or rarely used to officially package?
>
> I'm not well-versed in debian project mechanics, but my 2 cents on the
> issue is that we shoot for getting the most bang for our efforts. For me,
> that means our first concern is getting the software we want working on a
> Debian system. Inclusion into the main dist should be secondary. The
> strange compilation issues with php (and any other issues that _must_ be
> fixed if our packages are to make it into the main dist) need to be worked
> out, but they don't need to limit the usefulness of our efforts.
>
> I guess I'd argue for an unofficial repository from which we can work on
> 100% integration with the Debian proper. Anything short of that is going
> to leave us compiling custom versions for our own purposes. That would
> make this effort much less interesting, IMHO.
>
> It's ultimately a question of priority and I assert that a debian-based
> gis-friendly OS (even one that starts off with lots of sloppily-constructed
> packages) is much more useful than a handful of expertly crafted packages
> crippled to the point of being useless due to upstream issues that conflict
> with debian packaging guidelines, but which have most-likely never affected
> a single user.
>
> Inclusion into the debian mainstream should be a goal, but not a restraint.
>
> > NOTE: when I say we, I really mean you guys (and gals). I'm happy to
> > provide a bit of supporting advice and help upstream necessary changes to
> > packages I have commit access for but my Debian system is ancient. I have
> > carefully avoided learning anything about how to prepare .debs or .rpms
> > for that matter. You have my moral support of course!
>
> I had carefully avoided this as well until very recently. With the
> exception of the learning curve, I think building debs is technically
> easier than straight compilation if there are more than a few dependencies
> involved. Getting debs to pass muster with lintian may increase this
> difficulty level. I'm not sure.
>
> --Fred
- --
Paolo Cavallini
cavallini@faunalia.it www.faunalia.it
Piazza Garibaldi 5 - 56025 Pontedera (PI), Italy Tel: (+39)348-3801953
GPG key @: hkp://wwwkeys.pgp.net http://www.pgp.net/wwwkeys.html
https://www.biglumber.com
Only free software: www.gnu.org / www.linux.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBXExW/NedwLUzIr4RAmfCAKC8JI2XigDbXGb0gSLbMqptNotyGACfeV74
oTPUqRhJ6PounGZxUkaDqXg=
=Ju31
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: