<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD><TITLE>Re: R: R: [GRASS-dev] WinGRASS-6.3.0RC6 Self Installer</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16608" name=GENERATOR><BASE href=http://mailstore.rossoalice.alice.it/exchange/Alice000000001264700/Bozze/R:%20R:%20R:%20[GRASS-dev]%20WinGRASS-6.3.0RC6%20Self%20Installer.EML/1_text.htm></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText47979 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Hi Benjamin,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>>I think it is a good idea to encourage people to test-drive the<BR>>Python GUI. So go ahead as you suggested.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>OK. Thanks</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>>The main decision to make is:<BR><BR>>Should we go for an all-inclusive WinGRASS that has every<BR>>format/capability which GDAL and GRASS provide?<BR><BR>>Or should we keep it lean and stick to the most important<BR>>things, only adding small pieces at user-demand?<BR><BR>>We also need to keep in mind that there should be some<BR>>serious testing of every driver added to the binary distribution.</FONT></DIV><FONT size=2></FONT></DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>That's a very interesting issue. That's my point of view:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>All, I think, starts from a deep difference between Linux and Windows users: while *X user are used to easily download and compile packages reflecting their actual needs (even a beginner user can easiliy do that), it's unthinkable to ask the same to Windows users (even if not beginners!); they need a precompiled, possibly selfcontained package (*possibly* only if other needed *stuffs* are already available as Win32 precompiled binaries). This said, I think that:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>1) Even if we could provide precompiled binaries of the needed stuffs, without the need of reinventing the wheel every time (compiling sources by ourselves), I would highly prefer to provide WinGRASS packages including only stuffs directly compiled by ourselves. Currently WinGRASS package contains only 3 *not compiled* stuffs: MSYS, Bison and Flex. MSYS is the only application I would provide as precompiled binary, while I would prefer (in the future) to provide self-compiled versions of both Bison and Flex.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>2) I think that, as you said, a *serious testing of every driver added to the binary distribution* is actually the main thing we should pay attenction to, before to consider to *release* any new driver support whitin GRASS and GDAL. This said, as it seems to be in contrast with what I recently did within WinGRASS packaging, I decided to add SQLite, PostgreSQL and Expat* support to GDAL and GRASS because they are needed for QGIS, and I don't have enough time and *machines* to prepare different MSYS environment for both GRASS and QGIS projects.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>* Expat support is for GDAL only</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>3) because, as I said in the preamble, Windows users cannot download and compile by themselves extra-needed drivers and *supports* (in fact, they could, but it's realistically unthinkable), I think that we should consider to add any possible *extra* stuff in WinGRASS packages, according with their consistency (they *must* definitely work) and with actual users needs (it's a nonsence to add *pieces* not actually used or requested by users)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>IMHO, that's *a possible* point of view :-)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>Marco</FONT><FONT size=2><BR><BR></FONT></P></BODY></HTML>