Re: [Pkg-grass-general] update
On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 06:40, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 10:53:26AM +0100, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> > Qgis 0.5 is now in testing, and that's good news for us GIS users. However,
> > the problem of grass (+gdal) integration remains to be solved. I think this
> > is especially important, because it is a major stumbling block for the
> > adption of freegis.
> > I am working hard to promote this in my country and in my profession (see e.g.
> > http://www.math.ntnu.no/~jarlet/freesoftware/freesoftware.pdf), and I am sure
> > many others are doing the same elsewhere.
> > AFAICU, the stumbling block is the packaging of grass57, which would allow
> > gdal and qgis support. Is that correct? How can we get out of this?
> >
>
> I had no time to analyze the issue, just what I read on this ML.
> My own idea is that creating a single source for gdal+grass is probably
> the the cleaner solution. That requires of course accordance with
> currente gdal maintainer.
I haven't responded to this suggestion because I haven't had time to
really think about it and experiment. But my sense at this point is that
combining the sources would be problematic. Mostly this is based on
comments from a postgresql packager responding to my suggestion to
combine postgresql and postgis [0]. I've pasted those below.
On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 09:25, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> Only the GDAL GRASS driver requires the grass57 include files. My proposal
> is that it would be built later as a seperate package (though from the
> GDAL source tree). I will go ahead and ensure the GRASS driver can be
> built seperately before my GDAL 1.2.4 release.
This proposal of Frank's looks like a good potential solution to me.
Regards,
Steve
On 2004-04-19 10:55 -0400, Steve Halasz wrote:
> Perhaps to create a postgis debian package it needs to be part of the
> postgresql source package.
No way :-) Some months ago I worked quite much to dissect pgeasy,
psqlodbc, plr and libpg-perl from the postgresql source package. For
two of them I wrote new build systems, two others worked with p-dev.
Merging different upstream sources in a single Debian source package
has been a hassle (wrong version numbers, the neccessity to rebuild
and upload a complete new set of packages for just a single change in
one auxillary package, inconformance to policy, bad manageability...)
[0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=242593
Reply to: