[GRASS-user] PostgreSQL support (was: Grass62 on X86_64)

[Brad Douglas]

Craig,

The issue is dependencies.  We already have a large number of
dependencies (as you have noticed).  Requiring another very large
dependency is an issue, nor do I have the resources to create 5
different versions to accommodate each and every user (someone may want
Jasper, or Kakadu, or ECW...Sadly, we can't be all things to all people
with the current architecture).  Also, keep in mind that most of us are
not compensated for our work.  We are all volunteers here.

1 for and 1 against.  Others?

Let's open this up to i386, too, since I also build RPMs for that
architecture as well.

On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 12:09 -0700, Craig Aumann wrote:
> Well, I certainly use POSTGRESQL...  I don't understand the issues
> involved in modularizing it, or why it can't be compiled in by default
> without effecting endusers...   I guess the bigger issue is that  GRASS is
> supposed to support a variety of databases, and it would be nice if it
> simply did this without the end user having to muck about with
> recompilling.
> 
> 
> 
> > On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 07:45 -0700, Michael Barton wrote:
> >> Brad,
> >>
> >> We had enough problems building GRASS on FC6 that Markus had to help us
> >> by
> >> directly logging into the machine. It turned out to be a very minor
> >> issue,
> >> but infuriatingly difficult to find. Probably a growing number of people
> >> are
> >> in the process of upgrading to FC6 so I'd like to add my vote for a
> >> binary
> >> when you have time.
> >
> > Okay.  I'll try to throw something together for the 6.3 preview.  There
> > won't be PostgreSQL support unless I can find a way to make it
> > completely modular.  Then again, I have noticed that the PGSQL backend
> > is becoming increasingly popular as a default installation.
> >
> > Comments on PGSQL support?


-- 
Brad Douglas <rez touchofmadness com>                    KB8UYR/6
Address: 37.493,-121.924 / WGS84    National Map Corps #TNMC-3785