<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Yes, as Markus suggests, perhaps before we dig into r.le and start
cleaning it up, I'd better look at r.li, which I don't yet have
installed. More once I've done that...<br>
<br>
Bill Baker, Univ. of Wyoming<br>
<br>
Brad Douglas wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid1159221303.10109.152.camel@devel" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I completely read the original message wrong. I thought you were making
a bug report for some reason. Doh! :-) I hadn't realized you were the
author.
I believe the usages of stderr, stdout,etc. are proper, but there's a
push to get the modules to use G_message(), G_warning(),
G_fatal_error(), etc. It'll be a large task that will eventually need
to be done.
If you'd like some help, I can assist. I'll go over the source again
and send you an email off list. If you'll be actively working on it,
there's no need to remove it from CVS.
On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 15:43 -0600, William L. Baker wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hello Brad,
Thank you for your thoughts. I wrote the code with assistance, so have
some advantages there. But, disadvantage is that I have not followed
GRASS updates since 5.2 or so. For example, I did not know there was a
problem with using stderr, stdout, or files. Can someone explain what
should be done instead?
Yes, it could be removed from the production branches if you like.
Until I work on it, there probably won't be fixes. But, if someone who
knows GRASS revisions could help, then maybe this could be done more
quickly? But, eventually I would like it to work, and I will slowly
get up to speed and fix it even if no one has time (with some
occasional help).
One thing that would help me right away would be if someone would
quickly scan the source code to see any obvious inconsistencies with
6.xxx.
r.le.dist was never ported to the 5.XXX revision, as I ran out of time
to do that. So, it would require a much larger revision.
r.le.patch, r.le.setup, and r.le.pixel I think should not be so hard.
Bill Baker, Univ. of Wyoming
Brad Douglas wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 14:51 -0600, William L. Baker wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hello,
I may (still uncertain!) slowly try to get r.le programs to work under
6.X. Here is what I see as problems to be fixed. If anyone knows of
other problems, let me know:
1. r.le.setup fails when a sitefile is requested--update needed
2. r.le.setup does not display properly in the display window
3. with gis.m, r.le.setup does not connect to display window
4. r.le.pixel crashes with a memory problem
5. no r.le.dist program
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">William,
r.le needs major work. It has not been touched in several years and I'm
a bit surprised that it still works at all. I got a start on it last
week by at least resolving compiler errors/warnings for r.le.patch, but
I didn't really attempt to fix anything.
Is there anyone who has the time to deal with r.le in the near term? It
will be a fairly time consuming project if you plan on updating text I/O
(it references stderr, stdout, and files extensively).
What happened to r.le.dist, anyway? Would it be best to remove r.le
from production branches (6.2) until it works reliably again?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>