Re: [DebianGIS] grass62?
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 11:01:27AM +1300, Hamish wrote:
> > Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > > We should probably resume for lenny a grass-cvs source package to
> > > stay on the edge with latest not-so-stable release with a fast
> > > development cycle. That is/was commonly done for package difficult
> > > to test extensivly with confidence...
> >
> > I don't mind a grass-cvs package in experimental, but for lenny I
> > think it should be from the 6.2.x line. (At least for the next 12-18
> > months; depends on how long lenny will take....)
>
> Well I would move 6.0 -> 6.2 for lenny.
What ships with Etch is at the discretion of the DDs; but in the case
Etch doesn't contain GRASS 6.2.1 I ask that DebianGIS agrees to actively
maintain Etch backports of the latest 6.2.x release, and make it apt-get
available on the Alioth repository.
e.g. (sad story) I am still waiting for a GDAL 1.3.2 backport for sarge
+ new grass 6.0.2 and qgis 0.7.99 backport packages depending on that.
Currently I use the gdal-1.3.1.dgis backport for Sarge.
FWIW I think the 6.2.1 source will be Much more bug free vs. the 6.0.2
source. Debian is of course interested in package maturity as well,
which is what the 6.2 package currently lacks.
FWIW2 I think it's sad that grass's stable grass package could be 6.0.2
for another 18+ months. The day before Lenny is released it could be
>3.5 years since a new feature was added. This gives the impression of
dead development for Debian, DebianGIS, and GRASS; which is not true.
> Does it have sense to maintain a 6.0 branch after etch?
No. We have taken pains to insure that 6.2 is fully backwards compatible
with 6.0 (this will be true for all GRASS 6.x - a user script or C
module source written for GRASS 6.0 should work with GRASS 6.99 without
modification). The 6.0 branch is no longer maintained.
> My own idea is having a stable and a not-so-stable branch for grass
> both available in testing and than lenny.
I think we should wait and revisit this question when lenny exists;
for today I don't think a 6.3-cvs package is worth the effort-
divergence is still small. Once Lenny is near to release, this may be
a very different.
The weekly CVS snapshots are easy to pull from for a -cvs package.
Hamish
Reply to: