IMHO it should be called 6.3.1 since 6.3.0 was already released.
In SVN tags act exactly as branches, so in principle we could simply
checkout the tag and commit.
--Wolf
On 21.04.2008 19:29, Markus Neteler wrote:
hi,
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Martin Landa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2008/4/21, Glynn Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Note: most of the imagery modules are missing in 6.3.0.
>
> The reason is that changes to the way that SUBDIRS was handled in
> imagery/Makefile resulted in most of the modules not being built. The
> specific change in question is r30999.
>
> Essentially, only the modules listed in $(FFTWBASED) and $(XMONBASED)
> are actually built (assuming that FFTW and X11 respectively are
> enabled). The modules which are supposed to be built unconditionally
> are actually never built.
>
> I have just committed a fix to the trunk (r31065), but all of the
> 6.3.0 binary packages which people have built will be missing the
> following modules:
>
> i.ask
> i.atcorr
> i.cluster
> i.find
> i.gensig
> i.gensigset
> i.group
> i.his.rgb
> i.maxlik
> i.rectify
> i.rgb.his
> i.smap
> i.target
> i.pca
> i.cca
>
very bad news after tagging 6.3.0, better to discover now then later,
thanks Glynn! I have backported fixed Makefile to releasebranch_6_3. I
am afraid we need to tag 6.3.0 again(?)
*Can* we redo 6.3.0? Or go directly for 6.3.1?
Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
--
<:3 )---- Wolf Bergenheim ----( 8:>
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
