On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Markus Neteler wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Paul Kelly
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Markus Neteler wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Hamish <[email protected]> wrote:
Paul wrote:
...
I can confirm that
svn merge -c -41248 .
fixes 6.4 release branch.
OK, so please revert it.
Done now in all branches. (r41248-51 reverted)
Any opinions on whether we should also revert
r41223, or should I just commit the reversion now?
I would keep r41223 since it appears to be a bugfix for the previous versions:
https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/changeset/41223
It's left as is.
Of course it is a pity that CSV-sync'ing no longer works between
GDAL and GRASS.
I suppose so, but there has been a big change in the datum transform
philosophy of GDAL and for the moment it is incompatible with GRASS. I
would imagine keeping things as-is for 6.x, but for 7.x extending g.proj
to also report the other possible datum transformations from the EPSG
database (obtained via GDAL) as well as GRASS's own parameters from
datum.table and datumtransform.table. I think it is necessary to keep the
internal GRASS lists because (a) the descriptions as to validity seem to
be more detailed than in the GDAL EPSG list - I need to check that for
sure but for Monte_Mario at first glance they seemed to be, and (b) there
is no support for gridshift-based transformations in the EPSG-derived
list.
Paul
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
