[Geomoose-users] documentation ideas

[James Klassen]

OSGeo4W is unfortunately not very up to date on some key packages that we
need such as PHP and Mapscript.

I'd guess they would appreciate someone who would maintain those packages.
Based on Jeff's efforts with MS4W, that sounds like it would be a very
substantial commitment.
On Dec 23, 2015 10:40 AM, "Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)" <
bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

> All,
>
> From the Windows side, I’ve also thought about OSGeo4W from time to time
> as an optional server framework for GeoMOOSE.
>
> I wonder what it would take to add that as an option.  We’ve always been
> mainly in the MS4W camp, but maybe more (varied) is better.
>
> bobb
>
>
> On Dec 23, 2015, at 10:26 AM, Brent Fraser <bfraser at geoanalytic.com>
> wrote:
>
> Good idea.  A note for those Linux users who read the intro doc would be
> good.
>
> My changes to the intro doc assume MS4W.  I'll have to look into OSGeo
> Live to understand the implications...
>
> Best Regards,
> Brent Fraser
>
> On 12/23/2015 9:20 AM, James Klassen wrote:
>
> Introductory material could also assume OSGeo Live which uses a similar
> layout to MS4W but under /usr/local/geomoose.   Similarly there are the
> build from source on Linux guides I wrote in the GitHub wiki that produce
> the standard layout in /srv/geomoose.
>
> Also,  I am starting to think we need at least one line to the effect of
> that this is an introduction and not the only way.   I fear people will be
> unaware of the power/flexibility present in the design of GeoMoose because
> we tend to downplay it in the Intros.   Maybe this material just needs to
> be a Chapter 2 or something.
> On Dec 23, 2015 10:10 AM, "Dan Little" <theduckylittle at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Given Brent's observations, Introductory material should assume ms4w and
>> expect linux/UNIX users are advanced enough to adapt.
>>
>> On Wednesday, December 23, 2015, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) <
>> <bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I agree it’s confusing on it’s own, but if there were more than one
>>> server package configuration to look at it wouldn’t seem as mysterious.  I
>>> was planning ahead somewhat, with the eventual idea that more of these
>>> simple diagrams might appear over time.
>>>
>>> Should a bare minimum approach to having a running GeoMOOSE be taken
>>> then in the diagram.  Also, what would the bare minimum look like?
>>>
>>> Need APACHE (or ISS) obviously, and . .
>>>
>>> I can put more detail in into the diagram related to MS4W specifically
>>> vs an option where Apache/PHP are installed separately.
>>>
>>> bobb
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Dec 23, 2015, at 7:15 AM, Dan Little <theduckylittle at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I think the wording about MS4W is out of place and maybe even
>>> confusing.  If you install MS4W then Apache and PHP aren't optional -- they
>>> come with the package -- and if someone /just/ installed GeoMOOSE they
>>> aren't necessarily going to understand that MS4w is optional in and of
>>> itself.  They either (a) had the wherewithal to install it on their
>>> platform of choice or (b) installed it from MS4W.  Either way putting the
>>> "optional framework" stuff on there could cloud the user's impressions.
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geomoose-users mailing list
>> Geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-users
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geomoose-users mailing listGeomoose-users at lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geomoose-users mailing list
> Geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-users
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-users/attachments/20151223/54e3daa3/attachment.html>