On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 08:33:38AM +0100, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 08:15:17AM +0100, Paolo Cavallini wrote: > > At 04:12, venerdì 4 febbraio 2005, Steve Halasz has probably written: > > > It also changes the library package to libgrass6.0.0beta1. This will > > > break gdal-grass again(sorry Silke). But I think now it's the way to go. > > > The libraries require other files in the grass distribution apparently, > > > and so each grass version will require a particular libgrass version for > > > everything to work. It looks to me like this is how libgimp is versioned > > > for instance. > > > > Thanks a lot Steve for this. If every time a new grass version of grass is > > packaged gdal-grass breaks down, wouldn't it be more useful to package the > > two things together? > > All the best. > > Already suggested that more and more time... > Embedding the needed library within the grass source is the way to go IMHO. This is one solution. Another solution could be, not to rename the grass-libs each time a new grass package ist create. I called the gdal library libdal1 which is valid as long as all gdal-libs are compatible with each other. As soon as a completly new version of gdal comes along I will have to rename it to libgdal2 or something similar. Wouldn't it be possible to use such a naming convention for grass as well? But perhaps Francesco and Paolo are right and we should indeed place gdal-grass into the grass package. It shouldn't be too difficult to build the plugin within the grass package. Greetings, Silke -- Intevation GmbH Georgstrasse 4 49074 Osnabrück, Germany http://intevation.de http://intevation.de/~silke FreeGIS.org http://freegis.org/
Attachment:
pgpr_rfY88CGe.pgp
Description: PGP signature