[GRASS5] Re: [GRASSLIST:2996] Re: Debian Grass packages
neteler at itc.it
Mon Mar 22 04:54:00 EST 2004
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:33:06AM +0100, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> Scavenging the mail folder uncovered Hamish's letter:
> > * 5.0.3 offical package; a 5.3-cvs-"$date" one would be nice for Sarge.
> > * weekly 5.3 and 5.7-snapshot unoffical .debs hosted by the GRASS website.
> I don't know very well the state of grass but Markus mail lead me to think
> 5.0.3 was old and 5.3/5.7 are the way to go. now hamish says the opposite.
5.0.3 *is* oldish and 5.3/5.7 are the way to go.
But for me it's not too important. I contribute to new versions and
packaged an ARM .deb of 5.7 (which I heared was successfully repeated
on x86). If Debian packagers prefer to stick with 5.0.3, that's fine
for me (maybe not for the Debian users, though).
> IMHO the *best* thing we can do now is to have a _stable_ and _working_
> grass in debian. The version production systems out there are using should
> go in; please tell me which one.
GRASS 4.1 :-)
> After that I pretty much agree with hamish, we make a grass-snapshot package
> and distribute it in debian unstable or even from an apt-gettable repo on
> grass mirrors.
> Markus, it would very nice if you could fix packaging bugs by starting from
> debian packages and then sending diffs to the debian BTS, not by repackaging
Seems that I am the wrong person because I don't understand above sentence
> Unfortunately Debian packages have some requirements like
> automated build from sources+diff and we can't just take your hand crafted
> debs and drop them in the archive. Sorry.
OK, no problem for me (I'm no Debian user).
More information about the grass-dev