R: R: R: [GRASS-dev] GRASS 6.3.0 to be released

[marco.pasetti at alice.it]

Hi Moritz,
 
>This actually sounds much more sophisticated than what Glynn proposed.
 
yes, it is... but we could make a walkaround... I'll explain how later...
 
>Could you not simply propose one installer with only the latest
>(complete) GRASS binaries. This installer could check for any existing
>installation of GRASS and propose to erase that before installing the
>new version, or install the new version next to the old.
 
very good ;-) we are at the same *point* here. I already thought it some weeks ago, before ro release RC6... and that's why I already added in RC6 installer some registry key values that would let me the job (that is: let future installers recognise if GRASS is already istalled on the system, what version and where). I already talked with Markus about this option in future WinGRASS installers.
 
>The question then is: do we need a "complete" installer with everything
>in it (as you suggest), or can we impose the burden of two installers on
>people, i.e. as Glynn suggests: one GRASS installer + one Dependencies
>installer. I think this would be the best solution for us, but it would
>mean that at least for the first installation, users will have to
>install two packages. If the GRASS installer could test for the
>installation of the other package and propose to download it and lauch
>its installation autmagically, then this might be the best solution.
 
what do you mean about *dependencies*? the only dependencies that are indipendent to GRASS binaries is Python!
all the other DLLs are necessary to start GRASS. What would happen if we release GRASS with an additional support (jpeg, for example) not previously supported? we must provide the libjpeg with the installer, or update the *dependencies installer*?
IMHO, this is a sctrictly UNIX way to think... windows is very different: if you release binaries, you must provide all the DLLs needed by those binaries along with them.
It would be a *safer* solution to release future WinGRASS installers along with a separated updater: in that way new users would install the whole GRASS package (why provide 2 different installers when users absolutely need to install both GRASS bins and Deps?) or simply download and lunch a smaller updater, that would copy/replace only the new bins and libs.
 
BTW, I still think that providing separated installers for GRASS and its dependencies is a nonsense...
 
Best regards,
 
Marco


________________________________

Da: Moritz Lennert [mailto:mlennert at club.worldonline.be]
Inviato: mer 16/04/2008 15.07
A: marco.pasetti at alice.it
Cc: Glynn Clements; Martin Landa; GRASS developers list
Oggetto: Re: R: R: [GRASS-dev] GRASS 6.3.0 to be released



On 16/04/08 10:41, marco.pasetti at alice.it wrote:
> Glynn,
> 
>  >I would suggest two installers: one for GRASS alone, and one for the
> various dependencies (PROJ, GDAL, MSys, ...). The idea is that you
> shouldn't have to download all of the dependencies each time a new
> version of GRASS is released.
> we could do as follows:
> 
> 1. a *complete*, *first time* GRASS installer, based on latest release,
> with all the dependencies built-in
> 2. and *updater*, installed along the *first installation*, that check
> the WinGRASS repository looking for last GRASS updates, and
> download/install only the latest updated files (both for GRASS and
> dependencies). It would be not an easy work, but I think that I'll can
> do it... even if not very soon :-)

This actually sounds much more sophisticated than what Glynn proposed.
Could you not simply propose one installer with only the latest
(complete) GRASS binaries. This installer could check for any existing
installation of GRASS and propose to erase that before installing the
new version, or install the new version next to the old.

The question then is: do we need a "complete" installer with everything
in it (as you suggest), or can we impose the burden of two installers on
people, i.e. as Glynn suggests: one GRASS installer + one Dependencies
installer. I think this would be the best solution for us, but it would
mean that at least for the first installation, users will have to
install two packages. If the GRASS installer could test for the
installation of the other package and propose to download it and lauch
its installation autmagically, then this might be the best solution.

But you're the one doing the work, so the ultimate decision will be
yours ;-)

Moritz



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20080416/19c69f55/attachment.html