[GRASS5] Porting list

[Glynn Clements]

Michael Barton wrote:

> Still there are some applications that still might really require that new
> modules be written. In such cases now, anyone else using the module needs to
> have a self-compiled version of GRASS so that they can compile the new
> module against it. This really limits the number of people who can use it.

Right; "make install" should install a complete set of libraries and
headers, not just libgis/libdatetime, as well as the Makefile
fragments in the mk (5.3) or include/Make (5.7) directories.

> I guess what I'm asking is, 'is there any reason a module cannot be
> compiled so that it can simply be added to an existing GRASS installation as
> a binary, rather than needing to be compiled against it from source?'

The main problem is version compatibility. There is no simple way to
check whether a stand-alone module will be compatible with an existing
installation.

Given the number of people using CVS snapshots, providing add-ons only
for specific numbered versions is of limited benefit.

-- 
Glynn Clements <glynn at gclements.plus.com>