[osgeo4w-dev] Steps Forward for OSGeo4W

[Tamas Szekeres]

Hi Frank,

Thanks for the opening, which covers exactly my preferences too. The most
difficult thing will be to establish a working buildsystem which will
satisfy all the requirements of the individual projects. I think - however
- we will work out an RFC document about this, which can collect all the
technical information that should be taken into account. We'd also require
organize the licensing terms of the individual projects at a central
repository of licenses (containing the copies or at least the links to the
original licenses), should also provide some guidance about the
restrictions when using the specific projects in a particular deployment.

Both 32 bit and 64 bit support should be established, but we should enforce
these packages won't be mixed in a single installation. Probably a separate
installer would be sufficient which use a different repository of the
packages.

Best regards,

Tamas



2013/4/10 Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com>

> Folks,
>
> Jurgen, Paolo, Tamas and I had a small private discussion on
> issues with OSGeo4W and things that might be done.  I'd like to
> return this discussion now to the main list for the community at
> large.
>
> I'll summarize the items I'm keen on:
>
> 1) I think it is time to establish an OSGeo4W Project Steering
> Committee as a means to ensure that decisions can actually get
> made with regard to OSGeo4W.  I'd be willing to draft some
> preliminary documents in this regard and I'd like to suggest at
> least Jürgen Fischer, Tamas Szekeres, Matt Wilkie and myself as
> initial members.  Also perhaps Hirofumi Hayashi or one of the other
> folks who worked on the Japanese support and related improvements?
>
> 2) I'd like to see us move a central development server on which
> many of the core packages (mostly libraries) can be rebuilt by any
> of the core developers to make it easier to do upgrades, and to take
> care of important packages.  Alex Mandel has provided a windows VM
> at UCDavis that I hope might be suitable for this purpose.
>
> 3) I'd like to see us think about 64 windows support.  It might mean
> supporting 32bit and 64bit or even leaping as far as just shipping
> 64 bit binaries.
>
> 4) I'd like to see us put a little more process into place for testing
> and perhaps actually assemble periodic releases in a working area
> without subjecting the world to breakage when someone (often me)
> breaks a low level package.
>
> I'd appreciate feedback from the community on the above, and
> suggestions of other issues of importance.  Most importance in
> some ways is the PSC idea as settling that makes other items
> easier to work out with some conclusiveness.
>
> Best regards,
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
> warmerdam at pobox.com
> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
> and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Software Developer
>
> _______________________________________________
> osgeo4w-dev mailing list
> osgeo4w-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/osgeo4w-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/osgeo4w-dev/attachments/20130410/3cef9690/attachment.html>