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

[Glynn Clements]

brush wrote:

> > > 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.
> 
> really?  both some (original?) versions of the v.in.dwg instructions,
> and the opendwg toolkit manuals, seem to imply that the .h and .a
> libraries (really just 4 files) are already built, and just need to be
> linked into v.in.dwg's compilation.  am i missing something?

Ah; my mistake. I had assumed that they were providing source.

> > > 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.
> 
> ok.  i actually currently only have a precompiled version of 6.2.1.  so
> here's my questions:
> 
> how stable is 6.3?  is it appropriate for enduser use?

For a single user, 6.3 is probably preferable to 6.2. The occasional
user-visible change is probably outweighed by additional
functionality.

The main reason to stick with 6.2 is if you are investing significant
time and effort in creating scripts (or course material), where any
incompatible change would be a major inconvenience.

> the major installation hassle with GRASS seems to be getting all the 
> dependencies worked out.  so if i install a precompiled 6.2.2 on (say)
> xubuntu, and then recompile just GRASS with the new libraries, will that
> avoid most of the hassles?

When compiling from source, one thing to bear in mind is that you also
need the development packages (with the headers and .so symlinks) for
each dependency.

> goodness, it would be nice to have a script to do this!

Installing dependencies is highly platform-specific. Once you have all
of the dependencies, "configure ; make ; make install" will often
suffice if you don't need some of the less common features.

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