Re: R: R: [GRASS-dev] WinGRASS-6.3.0RC6 Self Installer
Marco Pasetti wrote: > I succesfully built libjpeg, but during tests it reported errors, so I > decided to remove it and then build TIFF without it; In wish list I meant to > add jpeg and its support in tiff. Is there a reason to build these from source, rather than using the GnuWin32 binaries: http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/jpeg.htm http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/tiff.htm Ideally, we should build as little as possible ourselves. -- Glynn Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
R: R: R: [GRASS-dev] WinGRASS-6.3.0RC6 Self Installer
Hi Benjamin, >I think it is a good idea to encourage people to test-drive the >Python GUI. So go ahead as you suggested. OK. Thanks >The main decision to make is: >Should we go for an all-inclusive WinGRASS that has every >format/capability which GDAL and GRASS provide? >Or should we keep it lean and stick to the most important >things, only adding small pieces at user-demand? >We also need to keep in mind that there should be some >serious testing of every driver added to the binary distribution. That's a very interesting issue. That's my point of view: All, I think, starts from a deep difference between Linux and Windows users: while *X user are used to easily download and compile packages reflecting their actual needs (even a beginner user can easiliy do that), it's unthinkable to ask the same to Windows users (even if not beginners!); they need a precompiled, possibly selfcontained package (*possibly* only if other needed *stuffs* are already available as Win32 precompiled binaries). This said, I think that: 1) Even if we could provide precompiled binaries of the needed stuffs, without the need of reinventing the wheel every time (compiling sources by ourselves), I would highly prefer to provide WinGRASS packages including only stuffs directly compiled by ourselves. Currently WinGRASS package contains only 3 *not compiled* stuffs: MSYS, Bison and Flex. MSYS is the only application I would provide as precompiled binary, while I would prefer (in the future) to provide self-compiled versions of both Bison and Flex. 2) I think that, as you said, a *serious testing of every driver added to the binary distribution* is actually the main thing we should pay attenction to, before to consider to *release* any new driver support whitin GRASS and GDAL. This said, as it seems to be in contrast with what I recently did within WinGRASS packaging, I decided to add SQLite, PostgreSQL and Expat* support to GDAL and GRASS because they are needed for QGIS, and I don't have enough time and *machines* to prepare different MSYS environment for both GRASS and QGIS projects. * Expat support is for GDAL only 3) because, as I said in the preamble, Windows users cannot download and compile by themselves extra-needed drivers and *supports* (in fact, they could, but it's realistically unthinkable), I think that we should consider to add any possible *extra* stuff in WinGRASS packages, according with their consistency (they *must* definitely work) and with actual users needs (it's a nonsence to add *pieces* not actually used or requested by users) IMHO, that's *a possible* point of view :-) Marco ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
R: R: [GRASS-dev] WinGRASS-6.3.0RC6 Self Installer
Hamish, >those [ie tiffinfo, gdalinfo, gdalwarp, gdal_translate, and cs2cs] would >all be very useful things to provide and, in fact, they are already provided ;-), since RC5 Marco Da: Hamish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: ven 28/03/2008 7.40 A: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'GRASS Developer Mailing List' Oggetto: Re: R: [GRASS-dev] WinGRASS-6.3.0RC6 Self Installer Marco: > But this would open a *pandora's box*, because on this way I should > specify also what files I exactly provide from other stuffs (such as > tiff, gdal, proj) those [ie tiffinfo, gdalinfo, gdalwarp, gdal_translate, and cs2cs] would all be very useful things to provide. Hamish Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
R: R: [GRASS-dev] WinGRASS-6.3.0RC6 Self Installer
Hi Moritz, >personally, I think the information about the GDAL, proj, etc are minor compared to the info about postgresql. Maybe you could just add a ** with a note "packages containing libraries and binaries, all others only contain library files", or something similar. Please, check if it works for you now. It's late here, and my brain continues to fail connections (brain ping errors!), so you'll probably need to fix my english errors ;-) Goodnight Marco -Messaggio originale- Da: Moritz Lennert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: giovedì 27 marzo 2008 23.23 A: Marco Pasetti Cc: 'GRASS Developer Mailing List' Oggetto: Re: R: [GRASS-dev] WinGRASS-6.3.0RC6 Self Installer On Thu, March 27, 2008 23:06, Marco Pasetti wrote: > Hi Moritz, > >>Just one last remark: IIRC, for PostgreSQL you only provide the >>libpg.dll, > not the entire postgresql installation. >>This should be mentioned. And what about sqlite ? Did you include the > sqlite.exe ? > > For PostgreSQL I provide only libpq.dll, while for SQLite I provide > *all the build*, that is also sqlite.exe. > On the same way, should I notice also further info for Tcl/Tk (as for > SQLite, I provide *all the build* of it)? > > But this would open a *pandora's box*, because on this way I should > specify also what files I exactly provide from other stuffs (such as > tiff, gdal, > proj) > > Opened to all suggestions ;-) personally, I think the information about the GDAL, proj, etc are minor compared to the info about postgresql. Maybe you could just add a ** with a note "packages containing libraries and binaries, all others only contain library files", or something similar. Moritz > > Marco > > -Messaggio originale- > Da: Moritz Lennert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Inviato: giovedì 27 marzo 2008 22.59 > A: Marco Pasetti > Cc: GRASS Developer Mailing List > Oggetto: Re: [GRASS-dev] WinGRASS-6.3.0RC6 Self Installer > > On Thu, March 27, 2008 22:46, Marco Pasetti wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Thanks for all the suggestions: I modified the document, and finally >> it sounds good for me: >> >> http://www.webalice.it/marco.pasetti/temp/README.html >> >> So, let's start the poll! ;-) > > Just one last remark: IIRC, for PostgreSQL you only provide the > libpg.dll, not the entire postgresql installation. This should be > mentioned. And what about sqlite ? Did you include the sqlite.exe ? > > Moritz > >> >> Marco >> >> ___ >> grass-dev mailing list >> grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev >> > > > > ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
R: R: [GRASS-dev] WinGRASS-6.3.0RC6 Self Installer
>If using --with-tiff and --without-jpeg works, either your TIFF library doesn't have JPEG support, or it can find the JPEG library without any assistance. Either way, adding --with-jpeg won't make any difference. Yes, currently TIFF library doesn't have JPEG support (as this libjpeg is not present in my MSYS environment); I succesfully built libjpeg, but during tests it reported errors, so I decided to remove it and then build TIFF without it; In wish list I meant to add jpeg and its support in tiff. Marco -Messaggio originale- Da: Glynn Clements [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: venerdì 28 marzo 2008 1.03 A: Marco Pasetti Cc: 'Moritz Lennert'; grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org Oggetto: Re: R: [GRASS-dev] WinGRASS-6.3.0RC6 Self Installer Marco Pasetti wrote: > >ODBC and maybe MySQL might be good things to add > > They are actually in my wish list, along with jpeg support, FFMPEG, > xerces and some other things. JPEG support doesn't actually mean anything. None of the Makefiles use the JPEG variables (JPEGLIB, JPEGLIBPATH and JPEGINCPATH). The configure script uses the variables when testing for the TIFF library, but that only matters if the TIFF library was built with JPEG support but it requires specific switches to locate the JPEG library (e.g. if the TIFF library is a static library). If using --with-tiff and --without-jpeg works, either your TIFF library doesn't have JPEG support, or it can find the JPEG library without any assistance. Either way, adding --with-jpeg won't make any difference. -- Glynn Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
