[GRASS5] GRASS extension manager proposal

[Michael Tiemann]

+1.  This is exactly the kind of architecture that will take GRASS to
the next level.  Very exciting to see!

On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 03:35, Roger Bivand wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Hamish wrote:
> Because, as Benjamin and others (especially Paolo Cavallini) have
> suggested, a development model with add-in modules is vastly more robust
> that one in which everything is in the same tarball. Central servicies
> need to be in the core distribution, but everything else should be
> modularised. They can be stored on a central CVS repository, but do not
> need to be in the same project, just to follow the same installation
> rules. 
> 
> In particular, it isn't obvious that the original choices made in GRASS to
> carry around large amounts of model interface, and also unmaintained model
> code, were sensible. If the models are maintained standalone anyway, the
> interface can be built and installed by people who need the functionality
> and have both GRASS and the model.
> 
> How to do a clean g.install isn't so clear, though - exposing the 
> dependencies of the local GRASS installation, its headers and libraries, 
> and to do it portably across OSX, Unix/Linux, and Cygwin. A lot of the R 
> CMD * family are stubs, scripts, and Perl programs, and that feels 
> flexible and robust. 
> 
> Roger
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Hamish
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > grass5 mailing list
> > grass5 at grass.itc.it
> > http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass5
> >