[GRASS-dev] v.in.dwg: status in GRASS 6.2.2, DWGdirect, etc.

[Glynn Clements]

brush wrote:

> i'm a relative newcomer to GRASS, so i appreciate your indulgence of any
> mistakes i make.  i've searched the web pretty extensively, and come to
> the conclusion (though it's a bit opaque), based on documents dating
> from between 2003 and 2005, that this is the status of importing DWG
> data into GRASS:
> 
> 1. v.in.dwg is the only module available

Correct.

> 2. it can only be used by compiling from source

Correct.

The licences for GRASS and the OpenDWG library are incompatible, so
it's impossible to distribute a binary which satisfies both licences.

> 3. one has to use the old OpenDWG Toolkit, rather than the actively
> maintained DWGDirect, either of which require becoming an associate
> member of OpenDesign Alliance by faxing a contract (no $$)

AFAICT, yes.

> 4. the approach is to unarchive the Toolkit into a folder, and then to
> run ./configure like so:
> 
>    ./configure \
>    ... \
>    --with-opendwg \
>    --with-opendwg-includes=/home/usr1/opendwg27 \
>    --with-opendwg-libs=/home/usr1/opendwg27

You need to build the OpenDWG library first.

> 5. and then to compile GRASS from scratch

If you already have a precompiled version of GRASS 6.3, you can
probably build just v.in.dwg with e.g.:

	make -C vector/v.in.dwg MODULE_TOPDIR=/usr/local/grass-6.3.cvs

6.2.2 doesn't include the Makefile fragments (include/Make/*.make), so
you can't easily build individual modules outside of the source tree.

> is this correct?  will this process work with 6.2.2?  is there any
> movement on using DWGDirect, which is the only way to be compatible with
> more recent versions of AutoCAD?

Someone who has the DWGDirect library will need to provide the code.

I'm not sure whether any of the active developers have either of the
DWG libraries (the original author of v.in.dwg, Radim Blazek, is no
longer an active developer).

The licensing conditions for the various DWG libraries (and the fact
that AutoDesk goes to significant lengths to inhibit compatibility)
tend to suppress interest.

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