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

[brush]

question at end...

On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 09:10:27PM +0100, Glynn Clements wrote:
> > > 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.

ok: then it seems to me i should install a precompiled version of 6.3,
and then build v.in.dwg alone using the Makefile fragments.  is that
correct?  this will avoid having to have development pkgs for
dependencies...

if i get this working, i'll try and write up instructions; where could
they be posted?

thanks,
.b