Fully agreed!

Main advantage I would see with snap is that it is supposed to be distro 
independent and that it possibly is easier with packages for different GRASS 
versions in parallel (again I do not have any experience with packaging).

From: Moritz Lennert <mlenn...@club.worldonline.be>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 10:06:57 AM
To: Stefan Blumentrath; Markus Neteler
Cc: GRASS user list
Subject: Re: [GRASS-user] Install GRASS stable and experimental in parallel

On 13/03/18 09:30, Stefan Blumentrath wrote:
> Hi Moritz,
> (warming this post up again ...).
> I see your point!
> And I am aware, that dependencies might be changed in development versions. 
> QGIS has some nightly builds e.g. with ubuntugis dependencies.
> Maybe snap could be useful? There does not seem to be a snap for GRASS yet:
> https://snapcraft.io/search?q=grass
> If you guys think this is of interest, I could have a look at it in Bonn (and 
> maybe join forces with QGIS project if the relevant people for the QGIS snap 
> [1,2] are in Bonn too).

I didn't know snap, but somehow, I have the feeling that with Docker,
snap, etc we are going back to a world where each software package
installs each of its dependencies separately, leading to the same
library being installed multiple times on one machine. I guess cheap
disk space and containerization makes this a bit less of a problem, but
it still just does not feel right when you come from the beautiful world
of coordinated packaging in Debian and others distros.


grass-user mailing list

Reply via email to