[pdal] lazperf requirement for PDAL 2.4+

[James Klassen]

I’m torn here…

It seems important for the other GIS packages to have pdal packaged (especially with the upcoming QGIS point cloud work). It also seems like it is important to have it packaged for OSGeo Live. 

However, while I mostly run Debian stable, I build/install multiple versions of pdal, lazperf, gdal, QGIS, CloudCompare, et al. from source because the packaged versions usually aren’t up to date with what I need (and I like building from source because it helps when I need to debug/modify code).

I haven’t packaged anything for Debian before.  I have built some of my own DEBs, but I just did the bare minimum to get something that would install. I haven’t gone through any of the community process, nor cared if the packages pass lint.  Lazperf itself seems like a pretty easy place to start (few dependencies, well behaved cmake, etc).  How much ongoing effort would be required to maintain a package such as lazperf?  


> On Oct 3, 2021, at 23:39, Sebastiaan Couwenberg <sebastic at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 
> On 10/3/21 9:31 PM, Howard Butler wrote:
>> If this has a significant impact on your upcoming workflow or distribution, please step forward with resources or time to change this trajectory.
> 
> lazperf is not packaged for Debian, help to get it packaged and
> continued maintenance is highly appreciated.
> 
> As I don't use PDAL myself, I'm more inclined to remove pdal from Debian
> than having to maintain another piece of software I don't actually use.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Bas
> 
> -- 
> GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
> Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146  50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
> _______________________________________________
> pdal mailing list
> pdal at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pdal