[Ubuntu] Adding saga 2.1.0 to ubuntugis

[Johan Van de Wauw]

On the live dvd I guess there was no issue because qgis did not rely
on gdal from ubuntugis (which causes the error).

About wx 2.9, I guess people expected that it would become the stable
line much faster, and in fact you will read on the website that you
should use it for new projects rather than wx 2.8.
In fact the release of 3.0 is on the roadmap for this month:
http://trac.wxwidgets.org/wiki/Roadmap .

Johan

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Alex Mandel <tech_dev at wildintellect.com> wrote:
> On 09/30/2013 11:36 PM, Alex Mandel wrote:
>> On 09/30/2013 11:32 PM, Johan Van de Wauw wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I would like to add saga 2.1.0 to ubuntugis. This would solve the
>>> problem for those users who would like to run qgis 2.0 with the last
>>> version of saga (which actually is a bug in gdal). See eg [1].
>>>
>>> The package already exists and has been tested by quite a number of
>>> users on my ppa[2], and it is part of the osgeo live dvd.
>>>
>>> The problem is that saga relies on a new version of wxwidgets (2.9)
>>> which may break building grass gis if it is just added to the ppa.
>>> This can be solved by renaming the package wx-common to eg
>>> wx-common-29 and making it conflict with wx-common. That way all
>>> existing wx-widgets programs will still work and build fine unless a
>>> build-dependency is made to wx-common-29.
>>> Anyone opposed to this solution? If needed I can first upload
>>> everything to testing to make sure it really works.
>>>
>>> Johan
>>>
>>> [1] http://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/72957/installing-qgis-2-0-and-saga-2-1-on-ubuntu-13-04
>>> [2]https://launchpad.net/~johanvdw/+archive/saga-gis
>>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> Uploading to Ubuntugis-testing sounds like a good plan.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>
>
> Now that I think about it how did we manage to get QGIS/GRASS etc from
> ubuntugis and SAGA from your ppa if there is a conflict?
>
> Maybe I'm not understanding this package naming resolution.
>
> I'm also curious about wx 2.9 and why that's a requirement, according to
> wx project 2.8.x is the current stable line. Don't let this hold you up,
> I'm just curious for knowledge sake.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex