Marco,
On 12/07/08 10:23, Marco Pasetti wrote:
Hi Moritz,
In this image, the installer suggests that it will install a newer
version of GRASS which is 6.3.0-4 instead of 6.3.0-3. In my
understanding these are not two different versions of GRASS, but
rather two different versions of the installer. If this is not
correct, then it shouldn't be 6.3.0 in both cases. If it is correct,
then why resinstall GRASS ?
yes, there's something to discuss here. You're right when you say that
it's not a different version of GRASS, it's still 6.3.0, but it's not
exactly a simple different version of the installer. Yes, the installer
may be different, but I usually release a new "installer" (that is a new
binary release) when I introduced changes in GRASS
Which kinds of changes do you introduce in GRASS ?
or its dependencies
binaries (adding new supports to GRASS or updating dependencies);
This is why it was suggested to separate GRASS from its dependencies in
the installer...
But since (AFAIK) GRASS binaries compiled with one version of e.g. gdal
or proj will not necessarily work with another version of these
libraries, I see the problem of having to create new "versions" of GRASS
whenever you update dependencies.
So, the question is double:
1) Should the winGRASS package of a particular version of GRASS be
recompiled regularly with new versions of its dependencies ? Arguably,
it would be much easier to decide on a particular version of these
dependencies, in order not to introduce several possible sources of new
bugs... And I don't think that having bleeding edge dependencies is
absolutely necessary for winGRASS testing.
2) If yes, and you recompile regularly with new version of the
dependencies, how should versioning be handled ?
that
is because WinGRASS is still at a high development stage, and it may
happen that, between source releases, I add new features or complete
some To-Do items about supports/dependencies.
Well all depends on what you call "features". If any of this implies
actual changes to the GRASS code, then you actually have a new version
of GRASS.
This said, could we replace the word "version" in the message box with
"binary release" or simply "release"? that would be, actually more
"honest"; do you agree?
I think we need to find an answer to above questions before we can
decide. Personally, I would plead for a very stable build environment
where only the GRASS source changes. AFAICT, your current winGRASS
package is already more up to date and feature packed than most Linux
distribution packages of GRASS, so no need to push this much further.
Moritz
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
