Hey Matthew, welcome to the GeoNode community.

I can give you some rough answers to some of the versions. If you
really need it exact I may be able to help, or at least point at the
right directions. But I'm curious about the definition of 'bundled
applications'? I mean if you're counting GeoTools and GeoServer as
separate things then do you need to do the same for all the open
source libraries that GeoServer depends on? Like I wouldn't consider
GeoTools an 'application' and probably wouldn't include it in the
list?

Others feel free to correct if I get anything wrong.

GeoNode does not require PostGIS/PostgreSQL, but it's recommended for
any production deployment. So you should be fine with any recent
version, so call it PostGIS 1.5 on PostgreSQL 9.1

GeoServer is version 2.1 for GeoNode 1.1 It uses the embedded
GeoWebCache in GeoServer, so I think you could just say the GeoServer
version, as all GeoServers ship with GeoWebCache.

OpenLayers would be 2.11, with GeoExt 1.1. GXP hasn't had an official
release afaik, could probably find you a github version hash if you
need it.

Django I believe is version 1.2, though I could be wrong. And
GeoNetwork is version 2.6

Hope this helps, let me know if you need more.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Simmons, Matthew T
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I looked through the archive, but didn’t see a similar question.  My company
> is trying to use GeoNode 1.1 for one of our projects.  However, before we
> can download the software, I need to document the version of the software as
> well as any bundled applications that are downloaded with GeoNode.  It looks
> like GeoNode is dependent on: PostgreSQL, PostGIS, GeoTools, GeoServer,
> GeoWebCache, OpenLayers, GeoExt, GXP, Django, and GeoNetwork.  I’m not sure
> which of these are actually included in GeoNode, and I’m not able to
> download the software to verify until I can document versions.
>
>
>
> Can you tell me which of these are actually downloaded with GeoNode and
> which versions of these application are bundled?  I’m sorry for the
> inconvenience, but I really appreciate the help.

Reply via email to