[GRASS5] Fw: Re: [Pkg-grass-general] Re: Bug#264566: Any progress on grass 5.7?

[Hamish]

Some debian list questions that maybe someone has ideas about?



Begin forwarded message:

Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:13:47 +1300
From: Hamish <hamish_nospam at yahoo.com>
To: Silke Reimer <Silke.Reimer at intevation.de>
Cc: pkg-grass-general at lists.alioth.debian.org, warmerdam at pobox.com,        blazek at itc.it
Subject: Re: [Pkg-grass-general] Re: Bug#264566: Any progress on grass 5.7?


[Debian]
> OK. Now back the the grass/gdal problem:
> Indeed the problem is that I need the grass development package for
> gdal to be build against grass. Otherwise we need gdal to build
> grass with general gdal support (i.e. with support for other raster
> and vector formats).
> 
> So the build order is
> - create grass development libraries
> - build gdal
> - build grass
> 
> Since I can not make gdal build depend on grass and grass build
> depend on gdal in the same time  I only see one solution to get both
> pacakges in a clean way into debian:
> 
> grass is splitted into two completely independent packages. The
> first one is just meant to build the development packages
> (libgrass-dev) and doesn't create any binary packages at all. The
> second one does build grass and libgrass.
> 
> Disadvantage:
> - The grass src will be included twice in debian :-(
> 
> Other suggestions? Am I overlooking something?

I think we may be overlooking something:


It was my understanding that with the latest version of gdal 1.2.3 (not
yet in debian) that Radim's patches had been applied and the conflict no
longer existed. I am not sure though? guys?


Hamish

_______________________________________________
Pkg-grass-general mailing list
Pkg-grass-general at lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-general




From: Francesco Paolo Lovergine <frankie at debian.org>
Subject: Re: [Pkg-grass-general] splitting (from Radim)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:15:58 +0200
To: pkg-grass-general at lists.alioth.debian.org
Sender: pkg-grass-general-admin at lists.alioth.debian.org

On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 08:00:19PM +0200, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> This is the advice from Radim Blazek.
> Hope this helps.
> All the best.
> pc
> 
> - ----------  Forwarded message  ----------
> 
> This is question for Glynn, I think, send it to devel list.
> 
> I think that now it is possible, but not optimal. I dont quite
> understand
> "first one is just meant to build the development packages
>  (libgrass-dev) and doesn't create any binary packages at all."
> 
> GDAL depends on libgrass_I, libgrass_vask, libgrass_gmath,
> libgrass_gis and libgrass_datetime but libgrass_vect
> depends on GDAL, so it is impossible to put all GRASS libraries
> to one package.
> It will become even worse once I write OGR driver for GRASS.
> 
> Another bad solution could be to built also static libraries
> for GRASS and compile GDAL using static libraries.
> 

I'm more and more thinking that the only decent option is to
compile the whole beast together, using one grass+gdal source.
It will produce both libgdal and grass packages...

I'm quite annoyed but this weird thing of building up packages
with recursive depencies anyway, it's typically the symptom
of something wrong in their architecture :-/

The right thing to do is having a third piece of software 
and both grass and gdal dependent on it. And this should
be assumed upstream. Other approaches will sooner or later
cause big headaches...


-- 
Francesco P. Lovergine

_______________________________________________
Pkg-grass-general mailing list
Pkg-grass-general at lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-general