<div dir="ltr">Hi Paolo, Jürgen<div><br></div><div>In my preference the same directory structure for osgeo4w and osgeo4w_64 would be a reasonable choice. Currently we have a "mapserver" directory which can be promoted to host the release versions. But I'm now about to provide the latest builds for the master and the stable branches which would apply for 2 different directories. I could also provide builds for the release version, but it will more likely break something for the existing stuff so it should be just a later phase when we should gather experiences with that.</div>
<div><br></div><div>My biggest concern about this concept (as I've already raised that at the conference) is that we cannot make sure that providing a new package will not break the upper level packages which depend on the package added. And the package author may not have experiences to compile all the upper level packages to make sure about all aspects. We should instead automate the whole build process in the osgeo4w server which would make it easier to recompile the whole bundle.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The current directory structure is not quite right regarding to the package versions. The major releases are definitely not binary compatible with the earlier releases, and it is up to the project how they handle the compatibility between the minor releases. In this regard at least each major release should go to a different directory, but sometimes the minor releases should also be in different location (depending on the project)</div>
<div><br></div><div>To sum up these I would somewhat suggest to use these directories:</div><div><br></div><div>mapserver/mapserver5 - To contain the 5.x releases</div><div>mapserver/mapserver6 - To contain the 6.x releases</div>
<div>mapserver-dev - To contain the daily snapshot from the master branch</div><div>mapserver-stable - To contain the daily snapshot from the current stable branch</div><div><br></div><div>Each directory should contain the corresponding mapscript packages in subdirectories. It is discouraged to submit just the core package, the authors should compile all the mapscript packages (and the plugins) in the same build session.</div>
<div><br></div><div>(added osgeo4w-dev to the cc list)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Tamas</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>
<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-02-05 Paolo Cavallini <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cavallini@faunalia.it" target="_blank">cavallini@faunalia.it</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Il 04/02/2014 22:27, Tamas Szekeres ha scritto:<br>
<div class="im">> At the moment I would prefer to submit separate package sets for mapscript/mapserver<br>
> for both the stable and the master branches (all those packages would be daily<br>
> built). In this regard I've added the following directories:<br>
<br>
</div>> 2014-02-04 Jürgen E. <<a href="mailto:jef@norbit.de">jef@norbit.de</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jef@norbit.de">jef@norbit.de</a>>>:<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> There is the mapserver package which used to be 5.2, but was recently updated<br>
> to 6.4. But there are still a lot of demo application packages that depend on<br>
> the mapserver package, although I doubt that those will work with mapserver<br>
> 6.4.<br>
</div><div class="im">> Long story short: it's a mess. And we don't even know if anyone is actually<br>
> using any of it. Seems very unlikely to me - but still for some reason<br>
> mapserver was recently updated to 6.4 - so there must be users.<br>
><br>
</div><div class="im">> I suppose anything we do can hardly make the mapserver situation worse, but I<br>
> wouldn't want to harm anything that is currently working fine.<br>
<br>
</div>Hi Juergen, Tamas.<br>
Here my thoughts:<br>
* situation on 64 bit should be clear and simple enough - may I suggest to just<br>
upload Tamas files? In this way we can check soon if everything is working correctly<br>
* as for 32 bit, I'd suggest to clear up the mess by asking on osgeo4w ML (possibly<br>
also Mapserver ML) if anybody is using or maintaining the old packages (5.6 is quite<br>
unlikely to be useful for anybody); if we get no reply in, say, one week, we go on<br>
and remove everything but for the latest version (recover them in case someone is<br>
seriously complains will be easy anyway)<br>
* Tamas is maintaining MS packages anyway: could osgeo4w be the place to put his work on?<br>
* certainly having mapserver and mapserver-dev would be good.<br>
Thoughts? Can we proceed, *at least* for 64 bit?<br>
All the best.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">--<br>
Paolo Cavallini - <a href="http://www.faunalia.eu" target="_blank">www.faunalia.eu</a><br>
Corsi QGIS e PostGIS: <a href="http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html" target="_blank">http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>