[mapguide-internals] mgos 2.1 state

Jason Birch Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca
Mon May 4 23:24:32 EDT 2009

We've got RFCs.  RFC 21 even went to vote (but never picked up enough votes; I think it was a bad time of year) and Greg agreed to set up a sandbox for Helio to work in. 



"As a start on moving this RFC forward, why don’t you submit the "CMakeLists.txt" files that you have ready, and we can go from there. "

Picking it up again should be as simple as asking for a sandbox in fdo-internals, getting commit rights (with CLA), and having at it.

I'd personally support taking the same approach for MapGuide if there are people interested in getting a cross-platform build system going.  I do like CMake and Ant has also been mentioned.

Note, cross-platform builds are not really the goal here, but CMake appears to give a clean system where dependencies can be easily managed.  Any work would also mean doing our best to remove our current hard-coded dependencies on the specific (usually stale) third party library versions in OEM.  If we didn't have that huge overhead, it would be easier to bundle MapGuide in distro-specific installer packages.


From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Zac Spitzer [zac.spitzer at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 8:01 PM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [mapguide-internals] mgos 2.1 state


I'm not sure if some of the recent fixes will make much difference,
but I have found
you get waaaay more bang for buck performance wise out of a linux
mapguide server
than a windows one ( and i'm not talking bout license fees, hehe)

It seems (anecdotally) that the linux version will use the full
capacity of the server
whereas on windows it never quite does that...

So with regards to setting up a linux sandbox in svn for working on
this, can we
look at the process, because to date we haven't progressed much on this, ie
like with the Cmake stuff which Helio was working on...



On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Jason Birch <Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca> wrote:
> I don't really have a vested interest in good Linux builds, other than the quality and life it will bring to the project, but IMO the FDO install story would be a good place to start.
> There's already an RFC (http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc21 and now that FDO 3.4 has been branched it's a great time to get in there and start making it happen.  Once this is proven with FDO, moving on to MapGuide is a logical next step.
> There's an RFC for MapGuide too:
> http://trac.osgeo.org/mapguide/wiki/MapGuideRfc57
> Helio has already done a lot of the work required for this; hopefully he's up for helping out if there are others who want to pitch in.
> Jason
> ________________________________________
> From: Jackie Ng
> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 7:47 PM
> To: mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [mapguide-internals] mgos 2.1 state
> Absolutely agreed. The Linux user story is quite woefully bad right now.
> Ideally we should have binary rpm and/or apt packages. Is creating
> distributable binaries that much more difficult in Linux?
> I still dream of the day I can go:
> sudo apt-get install mapguideopensource-x.y.z
> Instead of having to build from source and tremble in fear at gcc's cryptic
> compiler error messages :-)_______________________________________________
> mapguide-internals mailing list
> mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals

Zac Spitzer -
+61 405 847 168
mapguide-internals mailing list
mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org

More information about the mapguide-internals mailing list