[GRASS5] New GRASS addons CVS repository?

[benducke at compuserve.de]

----- Originalnachricht -----
Von: Hamish <hamish_nospam at yahoo.com>
Datum: Montag, 20. März 2006 1:37 am
Betreff: Re: [GRASS5] New GRASS addons CVS repository?

> > Martin Wegmann and me would like to suggest to
> > open a new "addons" CVS repository in parallel
> > to grass6/.
> 
> horray! One thing I worry about the add-ons wiki page is code 
> vanishingwhen a personal URL link goes down.
> 
> 
> > - create new "addons" (or however named) repo to
> >   CVS
> 
> contrib? experimental? shrug
> 
> 
> > - people can use GEM to add stuff from addons into
> >   their copy of GRASS
> 
> requires all add-ons to figure out a GEM makefile, but that can be
> done with help once in the CVS

That's right,
GEM can only manage modules contained in a GEM extension.
Basically, this means copying over the source code into
a skeleton file structure already provided by GEM 1.0rc1 and
writing some additional information into a bunch of ASCII
files. It's easy and the current GEM release has lots of
documentation on this.

GEM is really not intended to maintain single modules but
rather sets of C modules, libraries and scripts that form
a functional group. Thus, it would make sense for e.g. all authors
working on terrain analysis modules to put their stuff into
one extension. And add that as a new CVS repository.

Source code and HTML docs are perfectly maintainable inside
a GEM extension, so I see no need to shift modules out of
there and into the main GRASS CVS, once they mature.

On the contrary, this would be a disadvantage, because: 

a) people who are used to installing certain modules using
GEM extensions will suddenly not find them in there anymore
and have to re-install the whole GRASS base

b) GRASS already has so many modules that it is very hard
to know what functionality is in there and how to get to it.
I would argue against putting more stuff into GRASS main CVS
and would also think about migrating things out of it and
into a set of well-maintained extensions.


> 
> 
> > - move stable code, if of interest to the general
> >   GRASS community, into main CVS repo
> 
> grass6/ is restricted to GPL, often code the GEM will integrate may 
> not be GPL. Will grass6-addons/ (or whatever) CVS be limited to GPL?
> How to police that or at least keep the module's license clear?
> A "COPYRIGHT" file required in every module's main dir?
> (e.g. the viewshed module?)
> 
> 

GEM extensions have a license file that can be displayed by the
user via the --license option.
This file is for all source code inside an extension but there
is no technical reason why one couldn't have more than one
license in that file.


> > Opinions welcome...

I deem GEM stable enough to go into CVS.
Tge program itself is only ANSI C, so it would be easy
to add it to the main makefile and install it into e.g. /usr/local/bin
alongside the GRASS startup script.
This way, extensions are even maintainable from outside a GRASS
session which may have advantages for admins.

I have no clue about CVS, so if someone could integrate that
code I would be grateful.

Benjamin

> 
> The nice thing about the Wiki is the low barrier to entry to anyone.
> Can submitters to the new repo be given rights to their own dir or do
> they need general write permission on everything at Intevation's CVS?
> 
> 
> Hamish
> 
> _______________________________________________
> grass5 mailing list
> grass5 at grass.itc.it
> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass5
>