[GRASS-dev] Re: proposal for grass extensions and addons

[William Kyngesburye]

On Sep 19, 2007, at 9:36 PM, Michael Barton wrote:

>> We should also aim for one unified mechanism and extension format,
>> as we will not be able to keep more than one supported in the long  
>> term.
>
> Also agree sort of. There are different ways of *making* extensions,
> scripts, the GEM approach, William's makefile approach, and certainly
> others. It's probably a good idea to settle on a limited number of  
> these
> (e.g., decide on the best way to compile a binary from source, and  
> a best
> way to distribute a binary, etc.).
>
> But at the moment, I think it would be good to first focus on what  
> we do
> with extensions however we make them. For this, we need some kind of
> standard that makes them easy to use from the command line and easy  
> to run
> as menu items in the GUI.
>
> If we get this far, we can use the experience to go the next steps.
>
Glynn mentioned in the v.in.dwg discussion that the makefile  
fragments present in a 6.3 install are meant to enable building  
modules from source without the full GRASS source.  I had noticed  
these some time ago.  I need to try it out - it's basically what I'm  
doing with my external build makefiles.


-----
William Kyngesburye <kyngchaos*at*kyngchaos*dot*com>
http://www.kyngchaos.com/

"Oh, look, I seem to have fallen down a deep, dark hole.  Now what  
does that remind me of?  Ah, yes - life."

- Marvin