[postgis-devel] Vote on Merging postgis and raster installs andwhen

[Paul Ramsey]

36 unread messages... thanks Chris,
P.

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Chris Hodgson <chodgson at refractions.net> wrote:
> Paul if you read your geos-devel e-mail I think the release of GEOS 3.3.2 is
> just waiting on your special upload powers.
>
> Chris
>
>
> On 12-01-05 10:37 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>>
>> \On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland
>> <mark.cave-ayland at siriusit.co.uk>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/01/12 19:54, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think GDAL should be mandatory, but older GEOS should be OK (we've
>>>> gone to the trouble of stubbing those functions for a reason,
>>>> presumably. A configure WARNING makes sense, so at least ignorance
>>>> won't be an excuse.
>>>
>>> Hmmm but doesn't this undermine your earlier argument about keeping
>>> everything the same? The reason I spent time making PROJ/GEOS mandatory
>>> was
>>> because of the many issues we had stemmed from developers having
>>> different
>>> combinations of libraries installed - so for example I could commit a
>>> patch
>>> against PostGIS and have it pass regression without having PROJ installed
>>> locally, whereas someone else with PROJ could have it fail regression
>>> because it was never checked on my system.
>>>
>>> I'd much prefer to bump the minimum version of GEOS to give both users
>>> and
>>> developers a consistent experience rather than to keep stubbing functions
>>> against various different versions :(
>>
>> Yes it does undermine it, but it's not quite the same argument. If we
>> were talking about versioning liblwgeom and installing it separately
>> and then allowing PostGIS to work against different versions of that
>> (and by gum if we didn't have that conversation, almost made me blow
>> my brains out) then it would be the same argument.  GEOS is a separate
>> project and it's not unreasonable to expect people will have different
>> versions of it floating around and to maintain at least a little
>> backward compatibility to allow installation flexibility for folks.
>> The grey area is how *much* backward compatibility.
>>
>> I'll note that as of now, logic dictates that we have *no* backward
>> compatibility, because (a) topology should be a default build
>> component and (b) topology requires GEOS>= 3.3.2 (Arg!!! minor
>> version requirement!) and (c) that version of GEOS isn't even released
>> yet!
>>
>> Sandro, is there anything preventing us popping out a minor GEOS
>> release in short order so that when PostGIS 2alpha comes out it's not
>> depending on an unreleased library?
>>
>> p.
>> _______________________________________________
>> postgis-devel mailing list
>> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
>> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel