<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD><TITLE>Re: R: R: [GRASS-dev] GRASS 6.3.0 to be released</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16640" name=GENERATOR><BASE href=http://mailstore.rossoalice.alice.it/exchange/Alice000000001264700/Bozze/R:%20R:%20R:%20[GRASS-dev]%20GRASS%206.3.0%20to%20be%20released.EML/1_text.htm></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText27645 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Hi Moritz,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>>This actually sounds much more sophisticated than what Glynn proposed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>yes, it is... but we could make a walkaround... I'll explain how later...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>>Could you not simply propose one installer with only the latest<BR>>(complete) GRASS binaries. This installer could check for any existing<BR>>installation of GRASS and propose to erase that before installing the<BR>>new version, or install the new version next to the old.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>very good ;-) we are at the same *point* here. I already thought it some weeks ago, before ro release RC6... and that's why I already added in RC6 installer some registry key values that would let me the job (that is: let future installers recognise if GRASS is already istalled on the system, what version and where). I already talked with Markus about this option in future WinGRASS installers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>>The question then is: do we need a "complete" installer with everything<BR>>in it (as you suggest), or can we impose the burden of two installers on<BR>>people, i.e. as Glynn suggests: one GRASS installer + one Dependencies<BR>>installer. I think this would be the best solution for us, but it would<BR>>mean that at least for the first installation, users will have to<BR>>install two packages. If the GRASS installer could test for the<BR>>installation of the other package and propose to download it and lauch<BR>>its installation autmagically, then this might be the best solution.</FONT></DIV><FONT size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>what do you mean about *dependencies*? the only dependencies that are indipendent to GRASS binaries is Python!</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>all the other DLLs are necessary to start GRASS. What would happen if we release GRASS with an additional support (jpeg, for example) not previously supported? we must provide the libjpeg with the installer, or update the *dependencies installer*?</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>IMHO, this is a sctrictly UNIX way to think... windows is very different: if you release binaries, you must provide all the DLLs needed by those binaries along with them.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>It would be a *safer* solution to release future WinGRASS installers along with a separated updater: in that way new users would install the whole GRASS package (why provide 2 different installers when users absolutely need to install both GRASS bins and Deps?) or simply download and lunch a smaller updater, that would copy/replace only the new bins and libs.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>BTW, I still think that providing separated installers for GRASS and its dependencies is a nonsense...</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Best regards,</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Marco<BR></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>Da:</B> Moritz Lennert [mailto:mlennert@club.worldonline.be]<BR><B>Inviato:</B> mer 16/04/2008 15.07<BR><B>A:</B> marco.pasetti@alice.it<BR><B>Cc:</B> Glynn Clements; Martin Landa; GRASS developers list<BR><B>Oggetto:</B> Re: R: R: [GRASS-dev] GRASS 6.3.0 to be released<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>On 16/04/08 10:41, marco.pasetti@alice.it wrote:<BR>> Glynn,<BR>> <BR>> >I would suggest two installers: one for GRASS alone, and one for the<BR>> various dependencies (PROJ, GDAL, MSys, ...). The idea is that you<BR>> shouldn't have to download all of the dependencies each time a new<BR>> version of GRASS is released.<BR>> we could do as follows:<BR>> <BR>> 1. a *complete*, *first time* GRASS installer, based on latest release,<BR>> with all the dependencies built-in<BR>> 2. and *updater*, installed along the *first installation*, that check<BR>> the WinGRASS repository looking for last GRASS updates, and<BR>> download/install only the latest updated files (both for GRASS and<BR>> dependencies). It would be not an easy work, but I think that I'll can<BR>> do it... even if not very soon :-)<BR><BR>This actually sounds much more sophisticated than what Glynn proposed.<BR>Could you not simply propose one installer with only the latest<BR>(complete) GRASS binaries. This installer could check for any existing<BR>installation of GRASS and propose to erase that before installing the<BR>new version, or install the new version next to the old.<BR><BR>The question then is: do we need a "complete" installer with everything<BR>in it (as you suggest), or can we impose the burden of two installers on<BR>people, i.e. as Glynn suggests: one GRASS installer + one Dependencies<BR>installer. I think this would be the best solution for us, but it would<BR>mean that at least for the first installation, users will have to<BR>install two packages. If the GRASS installer could test for the<BR>installation of the other package and propose to download it and lauch<BR>its installation autmagically, then this might be the best solution.<BR><BR>But you're the one doing the work, so the ultimate decision will be<BR>yours ;-)<BR><BR>Moritz<BR><BR></FONT></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>