[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Pkg-grass-general] gdal/grass -- need your comments

On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 12:08, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 10:40:39AM -0500, Steve Halasz wrote:
> > On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 16:01, Markus Neteler wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 02:49:08PM -0500, Steve Halasz wrote:
> ...
> > > Naive question: What about submitting diffs to the GRASS
> > > project for integration into 5.7-CVS? May be less work for you
> > > in future...
> > 
> > Yes, I'm committed to doing this, even though I haven't yet :) Markus,
> > are you the person I should ask about getting CVS write access for
> > grass? I would be happy to keep the Debian files there up-to-date
> > myself. But...
> Yes and no: we usually decide among the developers.
> So, generally, I don't see big problems :-)
> > I don't think that grass cvs should be the canonical place to keep the
> > most up-to-date debian build files. We are aiming to package released
> > versions of grass. As we refine the packaging for 5.7.0, the debian
> > versions will go from 5.7.0-4 to 5.7.0-5 etc. This creates confusion
> > because the debian directory shipped in the tarball for any given
> > release will never be up-to-date with respect to that release. In qgis
> > cvs I even keep the debian dir outside the qgis source directory and it
> > does not ship with the software. My sense is that debian's packaging
> > system is more aligned towards this setup. Once the grass 5.7 package
> > enters debian, the place to get the latest debian source will be from
> > the debian archive. And there are tools in place to apply debian changes
> > to newly downloaded archives from the grass web site[1].
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Steve
> > 
> > [1]http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ch-update.en.html#s-newupstream
> For me anything is fine (I am not using Debian) but such removal may
> disappoint skilled Debian users who want to build a fresh GRASS from CVS.
> As the time frame for GRASS updates is not well defined (since neither 
> 5.3/5.4 reached Debian yet) I suggest to keep it. It doesn't harm, right?
> We could remove it in the release source code tarball(s).
> And the 5.7.0 release is already pretty outdated, so any control file on
> alioth (or wherever) is definitly non-functional for the current
> GRASS 5.7-CVS due to the recent migration of 5.3 code into the 5.7 repository.
> I am not very familiar with Debian, please allow me to ask:
> If you suggest to remove the control files from GRASS CVS, where
> to  provide them instead (I think of control files in sync with current 5.7)?

Alioth CVS is nice because it is relatively easy for Debian developers
to get write access. It also allows us to create branches to track
control files for various grass releases. I'm not opposed to keeping the
control files in grass CVS as well. We can keep grass CVS in synch with
Alioth's trunk which will track the latest release of grass.


Reply to: