[GRASS5] Re: [GRASSLIST:2996] Re: Debian Grass packages
Francesco Paolo Lovergine
frankie at debian.org
Mon Mar 22 17:27:53 EST 2004
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:54:00AM +0100, Markus Neteler wrote:
> 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.
We already have some development/snapshot packages around in the archive.
I can think to gimp as one of them. There's nothing wrong in having multiple
versions available, but surely a snapshot version is not typically useful
in a stable release, due to its always-in-progress nature, which is
quite far from the 'stability' concept in debian and off.
Francesco P. Lovergine
More information about the grass-dev