Michael, >I see what you mean on Windows. Actually, in this case, there are no >dependencies like you find on Unix systems thx. it's difficult to be a Windows user here. GRASS people is used to work on too much advanced systems than I'm used to ;-) (even if I'm a linux user too) >A separate install for Msys/TclTk/Python might be useful. MSYS: ----------------------- I think we could provide MSYS as install option or don't provide it at all... if people want MSYS they can download and install using the official MSYS installer (the GRASS installer could just check if MSYS is installed and create the grass63 file into /usr msys folder, according to selected GRASS install path, as it already does) TclTk ----------------------- This is needed, since GRASS is built with it and some binaries require tcl/tk DLLs. I think we must provide it along binaries Python ----------------------- I think that's the only indipendent package installer we could provide. >Then that part could be installed only as >needed and GRASS could be updated more often. I think that's not a *frequency* problem, but just a *weight* problem of the installers provided. If I had built a new version of GRASS to release, it's not absolutely a problem for me to package all the other files along with it (I mean the new GRASS build) as I as did with the WinGRASS-6.3.0RC5 and RC6 releases. I need to just run an automated batch file I wrote for the job, and then compile the NSIS script to create the related installer. The whole packaging job takes approx 5 minutes! I hope to have well described the *situation* Best regards, Marco
________________________________ Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED] per conto di Michael Barton Inviato: mer 16/04/2008 18.15 A: [email protected] Oggetto: Re: [GRASS-dev] GRASS 6.3.0 to be released Marco, I see what you mean on Windows. Actually, in this case, there are no dependencies like you find on Unix systems. A separate install for Msys/TclTk/Python might be useful. Then that part could be installed only as needed and GRASS could be updated more often. Michael On 4/16/08 9:00 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:18:30 +0200 > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: R: R: R: [GRASS-dev] GRASS 6.3.0 to be released > To: "Moritz Lennert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Martin Landa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Glynn Clements > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, GRASS developers list > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hi Moritz, > >> This actually sounds much more sophisticated than what Glynn proposed. > > yes, it is... but we could make a walkaround... I'll explain how later... > >> Could you not simply propose one installer with only the latest >> (complete) GRASS binaries. This installer could check for any existing >> installation of GRASS and propose to erase that before installing the >> new version, or install the new version next to the old. > > very good ;-) we are at the same *point* here. I already thought it some weeks > ago, before ro release RC6... and that's why I already added in RC6 installer > some registry key values that would let me the job (that is: let future > installers recognise if GRASS is already istalled on the system, what version > and where). I already talked with Markus about this option in future WinGRASS > installers. > >> The question then is: do we need a "complete" installer with everything >> in it (as you suggest), or can we impose the burden of two installers on >> people, i.e. as Glynn suggests: one GRASS installer + one Dependencies >> installer. I think this would be the best solution for us, but it would >> mean that at least for the first installation, users will have to >> install two packages. If the GRASS installer could test for the >> installation of the other package and propose to download it and lauch >> its installation autmagically, then this might be the best solution. > > what do you mean about *dependencies*? the only dependencies that are > indipendent to GRASS binaries is Python! > all the other DLLs are necessary to start GRASS. What would happen if we > release GRASS with an additional support (jpeg, for example) not previously > supported? we must provide the libjpeg with the installer, or update the > *dependencies installer*? > IMHO, this is a sctrictly UNIX way to think... windows is very different: if > you release binaries, you must provide all the DLLs needed by those binaries > along with them. > It would be a *safer* solution to release future WinGRASS installers along > with a separated updater: in that way new users would install the whole GRASS > package (why provide 2 different installers when users absolutely need to > install both GRASS bins and Deps?) or simply download and lunch a smaller > updater, that would copy/replace only the new bins and libs. > > BTW, I still think that providing separated installers for GRASS and its > dependencies is a nonsense... > > Best regards, > > Marco __________________________________________ Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology Director of Graduate Studies School of Human Evolution & Social Change Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity Arizona State University phone: 480-965-6213 fax: 480-965-7671 www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
_______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
