Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

2013-09-27 Thread Jachym Cepicky
Hi,

I was thinking the same about UbuntuGIS, count me in.


Jachym

P.S. Thank you all for this positive feedback in the discussion

Dne 25.9.2013 15:54, Daniel Morissette napsal(a):
 FYI I talked with Alan yesterday about setting up a PSC for UbuntuGIS to
 increase this project's bus number.
 
 Let's see what OSGeo4W does, and UbuntuGIS will likely adopt a similar
 approach.
 
 I agree with those who wrote that we should aim to share as much as
 possible between the various distros, for instance we should aim to
 reuse/share the getting started docs produced by OSGeo-Live.
 
 That being said I am not convinced that a single PSC overseeing all
 binary distros could be very efficient. OSGeo4W, UbuntuGIS, OSGeo-Live,
 etc, all have some commonalities, but also some big differences in the
 end product due to the nature of the platform that they target. Separate
 PSCs/teams focused on each platform seem more natural to me, even if
 some devs end up participating on multiple teams, but I'd be happy to be
 proven wrong of course.
 
 Daniel
 
 
 On 13-09-25 9:43 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
 Folks,

 I have initiated an RFC for a project management committee for
 OSGeo4W.  I'd encourage everyone interested in participating to joint
 the osgeo4w-dev mailing list and to continue detailed discussion
 there.

   http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/osgeo4w-dev

 I think this list (osgeo-discuss) is a great place to discuss linkages
 between different packaging efforts.

 Best regards,
 Frank


 On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Jo Cook joc...@astuntechnology.com
 wrote:
 The newest version of Portable GIS doesn't require quite so many admin
 privileges, but I've also slimmed it down dramatically so it fits on a
 smaller USB stick, so it contains a lot less software (no gvsig, no
 mysql
 etc). It is used extensively for training courses in the UK, without too
 many problems, and the new version should be better again as I have a
 windows 8 VM to test on at last.

 I'd like to bring Portable GIS in line with OSGeo4W and OSGeo Live- I've
 spoken to both Alex and Cameron about this in the past- but I have
 some work
 to do before that's possible- namely around documenting exactly which
 files
 I change, and also the build process. It's all in a local mercurial
 repository at the moment, but I'd really like to get it online. To be
 honest, my big concern is that I don't always have time to focus on
 things
 outside of my core work (maybe that will change post FOSS4G) and I can't
 guarantee being able to pitch in at release time, or even respond to
 issues
 in a timely manner. That's the main reason why I've kept it as a
 little pet
 project- so I'm not letting anyone else down!

 Sorry, didn't mean to hijack this discussion!

 I think it makes sense to come up with an over-arching
 project/committee/whatever that covers both OSGeo4W and OSGeo-Live, and
 maybe PortableGIS at some point, rather than separate projects. It's
 always
 better to share work rather than replicate it. Does anyone have any
 objections to that idea? Personally, I'd then sketch out the
 workflows for
 each, and figure out what make-up of committee would be required to
 oversee
 that and go through incubation.

 Jo


 On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alex Mandel
 tech_...@wildintellect.com
 wrote:

 On 09/24/2013 12:50 AM, Johan Van de Wauw wrote:
 On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Angelos Tzotsos
 gcpp.kal...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 Hi Daniel,

 I am in favor of both OSGeoLive and OSGeo4W going through a few weeks
 incubation process.

 Best,
 Angelos

 My own impression is that if we want to reach out to non-geek GIS
 users the ideal way would be a system like portable GIS with the great
 documentation of the live dvd, ie run and test the programs without
 needing to be admin or having to install different programs.

 I've researched this problem, talked with Jo (Current author of
 PortableGIS http://www.archaeogeek.com/portable-gis.html)

 There is almost no way to make this work without Admin priveleges on a
 windows machine. Some individual apps can be made to work by
 extensively
 modifying how they look for libs but many require things like a jvm to
 run on top of, or a mix of system an local libs (e.g. Visual C++ is
 required for many OSGeo4W apps and requires an install, that's actually
 about the only part that has to be installed vs just in the OSGeo4w
 folder).

 This is actually why I settled on helping create OSGeo Live bootable
 products and virtual machines. Of course this isn't perfect either as
 figuring out how to boot a disk or usb seems beyond some users, and the
 virtual machine still hits needing admin to install virtualization
 software.

 I also agree there's no reason many of the documentation efforts can't
 be shared.

 Thanks,
 Alex
 ___
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss




 -- 
 Jo Cook
 Astun Technology Ltd, The Coach 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

2013-09-25 Thread Jo Cook
The newest version of Portable GIS doesn't require quite so many admin
privileges, but I've also slimmed it down dramatically so it fits on a
smaller USB stick, so it contains a lot less software (no gvsig, no mysql
etc). It is used extensively for training courses in the UK, without too
many problems, and the new version should be better again as I have a
windows 8 VM to test on at last.

I'd like to bring Portable GIS in line with OSGeo4W and OSGeo Live- I've
spoken to both Alex and Cameron about this in the past- but I have some
work to do before that's possible- namely around documenting exactly which
files I change, and also the build process. It's all in a local mercurial
repository at the moment, but I'd really like to get it online. To be
honest, my big concern is that I don't always have time to focus on things
outside of my core work (maybe that will change post FOSS4G) and I can't
guarantee being able to pitch in at release time, or even respond to issues
in a timely manner. That's the main reason why I've kept it as a little pet
project- so I'm not letting anyone else down!

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack this discussion!

I think it makes sense to come up with an over-arching
project/committee/whatever that covers both OSGeo4W and OSGeo-Live, and
maybe PortableGIS at some point, rather than separate projects. It's always
better to share work rather than replicate it. Does anyone have any
objections to that idea? Personally, I'd then sketch out the workflows for
each, and figure out what make-up of committee would be required to oversee
that and go through incubation.

Jo


On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alex Mandel tech_...@wildintellect.comwrote:

 On 09/24/2013 12:50 AM, Johan Van de Wauw wrote:
  On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Angelos Tzotsos gcpp.kal...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
 
  Hi Daniel,
 
  I am in favor of both OSGeoLive and OSGeo4W going through a few weeks
  incubation process.
 
  Best,
  Angelos
 
  My own impression is that if we want to reach out to non-geek GIS
  users the ideal way would be a system like portable GIS with the great
  documentation of the live dvd, ie run and test the programs without
  needing to be admin or having to install different programs.

 I've researched this problem, talked with Jo (Current author of
 PortableGIS http://www.archaeogeek.com/portable-gis.html)

 There is almost no way to make this work without Admin priveleges on a
 windows machine. Some individual apps can be made to work by extensively
 modifying how they look for libs but many require things like a jvm to
 run on top of, or a mix of system an local libs (e.g. Visual C++ is
 required for many OSGeo4W apps and requires an install, that's actually
 about the only part that has to be installed vs just in the OSGeo4w
 folder).

 This is actually why I settled on helping create OSGeo Live bootable
 products and virtual machines. Of course this isn't perfect either as
 figuring out how to boot a disk or usb seems beyond some users, and the
 virtual machine still hits needing admin to install virtualization
 software.

 I also agree there's no reason many of the documentation efforts can't
 be shared.

 Thanks,
 Alex
 ___
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss




-- 
***Jo Cook*
Astun Technology Ltd, The Coach House, 17 West Street, Epsom, Surrey, KT18
7RL, UK
t:+44 7930 524 155
iShare - Data integration and publishing platformhttp://www.isharemaps.com/

*

 Company registration no. 5410695. Registered in England and Wales.
Registered office: 120 Manor Green Road, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8LN VAT no.
864201149.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

2013-09-25 Thread Frank Warmerdam
Folks,

I have initiated an RFC for a project management committee for
OSGeo4W.  I'd encourage everyone interested in participating to joint
the osgeo4w-dev mailing list and to continue detailed discussion
there.

 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/osgeo4w-dev

I think this list (osgeo-discuss) is a great place to discuss linkages
between different packaging efforts.

Best regards,
Frank


On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Jo Cook joc...@astuntechnology.com wrote:
 The newest version of Portable GIS doesn't require quite so many admin
 privileges, but I've also slimmed it down dramatically so it fits on a
 smaller USB stick, so it contains a lot less software (no gvsig, no mysql
 etc). It is used extensively for training courses in the UK, without too
 many problems, and the new version should be better again as I have a
 windows 8 VM to test on at last.

 I'd like to bring Portable GIS in line with OSGeo4W and OSGeo Live- I've
 spoken to both Alex and Cameron about this in the past- but I have some work
 to do before that's possible- namely around documenting exactly which files
 I change, and also the build process. It's all in a local mercurial
 repository at the moment, but I'd really like to get it online. To be
 honest, my big concern is that I don't always have time to focus on things
 outside of my core work (maybe that will change post FOSS4G) and I can't
 guarantee being able to pitch in at release time, or even respond to issues
 in a timely manner. That's the main reason why I've kept it as a little pet
 project- so I'm not letting anyone else down!

 Sorry, didn't mean to hijack this discussion!

 I think it makes sense to come up with an over-arching
 project/committee/whatever that covers both OSGeo4W and OSGeo-Live, and
 maybe PortableGIS at some point, rather than separate projects. It's always
 better to share work rather than replicate it. Does anyone have any
 objections to that idea? Personally, I'd then sketch out the workflows for
 each, and figure out what make-up of committee would be required to oversee
 that and go through incubation.

 Jo


 On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alex Mandel tech_...@wildintellect.com
 wrote:

 On 09/24/2013 12:50 AM, Johan Van de Wauw wrote:
  On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Angelos Tzotsos gcpp.kal...@gmail.com
  wrote:
 
 
  Hi Daniel,
 
  I am in favor of both OSGeoLive and OSGeo4W going through a few weeks
  incubation process.
 
  Best,
  Angelos
 
  My own impression is that if we want to reach out to non-geek GIS
  users the ideal way would be a system like portable GIS with the great
  documentation of the live dvd, ie run and test the programs without
  needing to be admin or having to install different programs.

 I've researched this problem, talked with Jo (Current author of
 PortableGIS http://www.archaeogeek.com/portable-gis.html)

 There is almost no way to make this work without Admin priveleges on a
 windows machine. Some individual apps can be made to work by extensively
 modifying how they look for libs but many require things like a jvm to
 run on top of, or a mix of system an local libs (e.g. Visual C++ is
 required for many OSGeo4W apps and requires an install, that's actually
 about the only part that has to be installed vs just in the OSGeo4w
 folder).

 This is actually why I settled on helping create OSGeo Live bootable
 products and virtual machines. Of course this isn't perfect either as
 figuring out how to boot a disk or usb seems beyond some users, and the
 virtual machine still hits needing admin to install virtualization
 software.

 I also agree there's no reason many of the documentation efforts can't
 be shared.

 Thanks,
 Alex
 ___
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss




 --
 Jo Cook
 Astun Technology Ltd, The Coach House, 17 West Street, Epsom, Surrey, KT18
 7RL, UK
 t:+44 7930 524 155
 iShare - Data integration and publishing platform

 *

 Company registration no. 5410695. Registered in England and Wales.
 Registered office: 120 Manor Green Road, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8LN VAT no.
 864201149.

 ___
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



-- 
---+--
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmer...@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush| Geospatial Software Developer
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

2013-09-25 Thread Daniel Morissette
FYI I talked with Alan yesterday about setting up a PSC for UbuntuGIS to 
increase this project's bus number.


Let's see what OSGeo4W does, and UbuntuGIS will likely adopt a similar 
approach.


I agree with those who wrote that we should aim to share as much as 
possible between the various distros, for instance we should aim to 
reuse/share the getting started docs produced by OSGeo-Live.


That being said I am not convinced that a single PSC overseeing all 
binary distros could be very efficient. OSGeo4W, UbuntuGIS, OSGeo-Live, 
etc, all have some commonalities, but also some big differences in the 
end product due to the nature of the platform that they target. Separate 
PSCs/teams focused on each platform seem more natural to me, even if 
some devs end up participating on multiple teams, but I'd be happy to be 
proven wrong of course.


Daniel


On 13-09-25 9:43 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:

Folks,

I have initiated an RFC for a project management committee for
OSGeo4W.  I'd encourage everyone interested in participating to joint
the osgeo4w-dev mailing list and to continue detailed discussion
there.

  http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/osgeo4w-dev

I think this list (osgeo-discuss) is a great place to discuss linkages
between different packaging efforts.

Best regards,
Frank


On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Jo Cook joc...@astuntechnology.com wrote:

The newest version of Portable GIS doesn't require quite so many admin
privileges, but I've also slimmed it down dramatically so it fits on a
smaller USB stick, so it contains a lot less software (no gvsig, no mysql
etc). It is used extensively for training courses in the UK, without too
many problems, and the new version should be better again as I have a
windows 8 VM to test on at last.

I'd like to bring Portable GIS in line with OSGeo4W and OSGeo Live- I've
spoken to both Alex and Cameron about this in the past- but I have some work
to do before that's possible- namely around documenting exactly which files
I change, and also the build process. It's all in a local mercurial
repository at the moment, but I'd really like to get it online. To be
honest, my big concern is that I don't always have time to focus on things
outside of my core work (maybe that will change post FOSS4G) and I can't
guarantee being able to pitch in at release time, or even respond to issues
in a timely manner. That's the main reason why I've kept it as a little pet
project- so I'm not letting anyone else down!

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack this discussion!

I think it makes sense to come up with an over-arching
project/committee/whatever that covers both OSGeo4W and OSGeo-Live, and
maybe PortableGIS at some point, rather than separate projects. It's always
better to share work rather than replicate it. Does anyone have any
objections to that idea? Personally, I'd then sketch out the workflows for
each, and figure out what make-up of committee would be required to oversee
that and go through incubation.

Jo


On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alex Mandel tech_...@wildintellect.com
wrote:


On 09/24/2013 12:50 AM, Johan Van de Wauw wrote:

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Angelos Tzotsos gcpp.kal...@gmail.com
wrote:



Hi Daniel,

I am in favor of both OSGeoLive and OSGeo4W going through a few weeks
incubation process.

Best,
Angelos


My own impression is that if we want to reach out to non-geek GIS
users the ideal way would be a system like portable GIS with the great
documentation of the live dvd, ie run and test the programs without
needing to be admin or having to install different programs.


I've researched this problem, talked with Jo (Current author of
PortableGIS http://www.archaeogeek.com/portable-gis.html)

There is almost no way to make this work without Admin priveleges on a
windows machine. Some individual apps can be made to work by extensively
modifying how they look for libs but many require things like a jvm to
run on top of, or a mix of system an local libs (e.g. Visual C++ is
required for many OSGeo4W apps and requires an install, that's actually
about the only part that has to be installed vs just in the OSGeo4w
folder).

This is actually why I settled on helping create OSGeo Live bootable
products and virtual machines. Of course this isn't perfect either as
figuring out how to boot a disk or usb seems beyond some users, and the
virtual machine still hits needing admin to install virtualization
software.

I also agree there's no reason many of the documentation efforts can't
be shared.

Thanks,
Alex
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss





--
Jo Cook
Astun Technology Ltd, The Coach House, 17 West Street, Epsom, Surrey, KT18
7RL, UK
t:+44 7930 524 155
iShare - Data integration and publishing platform

*

Company registration no. 5410695. Registered in England and Wales.
Registered office: 120 Manor Green Road, 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

2013-09-25 Thread Jürgen E . Fischer
Hi,

On Wed, 25. Sep 2013 at 06:43:21 -0700, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
 I have initiated an RFC for a project management committee for OSGeo4W.

Thanks.

 I'd encourage everyone interested in participating to joint the osgeo4w-dev
 mailing list and to continue detailed discussion there.
 
  http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/osgeo4w-dev
 
 I think this list (osgeo-discuss) is a great place to discuss linkages
 between different packaging efforts.

Probably,  I just subscribed here.  So I missed the initial discussion
(although meanwhile read up in the archive).

On Wed, 25. Sep 2013 at 09:54:11 -0400, Daniel Morissette wrote:
 That being said I am not convinced that a single PSC overseeing all  binary
 distros could be very efficient. OSGeo4W, UbuntuGIS, OSGeo-Live,  etc, all
 have some commonalities, but also some big differences in the  end product
 due to the nature of the platform that they target. Separate  PSCs/teams
 focused on each platform seem more natural to me, even if  some devs end up
 participating on multiple teams, but I'd be happy to be  proven wrong of
 course.

I also expect separate projects to work better - packaging is probably more
about the differences of platforms than their commonalities.  But as I'm doing
the debian (and in turn ubuntugis) and the OSGeo4W packaging of QGIS, I'm
probably a bad example for that point.

I also believe coordination could become a problem, if we try to get everything
under one umbrella.


Jürgen

-- 
Jürgen E. Fischer norBIT GmbH   Tel. +49-4931-918175-31
Dipl.-Inf. (FH)   Rheinstraße 13Fax. +49-4931-918175-50
Software Engineer D-26506 Norden   http://www.norbit.de
QGIS PSC member (RM)   IRC: jef on FreeNode 


-- 
norBIT Gesellschaft fuer Unternehmensberatung und Informationssysteme mbH
Rheinstrasse 13, 26506 Norden
GF: Jelto Buurman, HR: Amtsgericht Emden, HRB 5502

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

2013-09-25 Thread Tamas Szekeres
Frank,

The RFC http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo4w/wiki/rfc1_pmc looks pretty good,
thanks for putting that together. Once the PSC is formed, I'm keen on
writing a second one where we could start thinking about the primary
objectives and requirements of the system we should realize, I think we all
have quite some ideas, and experiences in creating windows builds (both
positive and negative) which makes it possible to find out the right
direction to follow.

I also think packaging on Windows is a different thing, other platforms may
apply for a separate governance regarding to the binary distributions,
there might be some common aspects, though.

Best regards,

Tamas



2013/9/25 Frank Warmerdam warmer...@pobox.com

 Folks,

 I have initiated an RFC for a project management committee for
 OSGeo4W.  I'd encourage everyone interested in participating to joint
 the osgeo4w-dev mailing list and to continue detailed discussion
 there.

  http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/osgeo4w-dev

 I think this list (osgeo-discuss) is a great place to discuss linkages
 between different packaging efforts.

 Best regards,
 Frank


 On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Jo Cook joc...@astuntechnology.com
 wrote:
  The newest version of Portable GIS doesn't require quite so many admin
  privileges, but I've also slimmed it down dramatically so it fits on a
  smaller USB stick, so it contains a lot less software (no gvsig, no mysql
  etc). It is used extensively for training courses in the UK, without too
  many problems, and the new version should be better again as I have a
  windows 8 VM to test on at last.
 
  I'd like to bring Portable GIS in line with OSGeo4W and OSGeo Live- I've
  spoken to both Alex and Cameron about this in the past- but I have some
 work
  to do before that's possible- namely around documenting exactly which
 files
  I change, and also the build process. It's all in a local mercurial
  repository at the moment, but I'd really like to get it online. To be
  honest, my big concern is that I don't always have time to focus on
 things
  outside of my core work (maybe that will change post FOSS4G) and I can't
  guarantee being able to pitch in at release time, or even respond to
 issues
  in a timely manner. That's the main reason why I've kept it as a little
 pet
  project- so I'm not letting anyone else down!
 
  Sorry, didn't mean to hijack this discussion!
 
  I think it makes sense to come up with an over-arching
  project/committee/whatever that covers both OSGeo4W and OSGeo-Live, and
  maybe PortableGIS at some point, rather than separate projects. It's
 always
  better to share work rather than replicate it. Does anyone have any
  objections to that idea? Personally, I'd then sketch out the workflows
 for
  each, and figure out what make-up of committee would be required to
 oversee
  that and go through incubation.
 
  Jo
 
 
  On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alex Mandel tech_...@wildintellect.com
 
  wrote:
 
  On 09/24/2013 12:50 AM, Johan Van de Wauw wrote:
   On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Angelos Tzotsos 
 gcpp.kal...@gmail.com
   wrote:
  
  
   Hi Daniel,
  
   I am in favor of both OSGeoLive and OSGeo4W going through a few weeks
   incubation process.
  
   Best,
   Angelos
  
   My own impression is that if we want to reach out to non-geek GIS
   users the ideal way would be a system like portable GIS with the great
   documentation of the live dvd, ie run and test the programs without
   needing to be admin or having to install different programs.
 
  I've researched this problem, talked with Jo (Current author of
  PortableGIS http://www.archaeogeek.com/portable-gis.html)
 
  There is almost no way to make this work without Admin priveleges on a
  windows machine. Some individual apps can be made to work by extensively
  modifying how they look for libs but many require things like a jvm to
  run on top of, or a mix of system an local libs (e.g. Visual C++ is
  required for many OSGeo4W apps and requires an install, that's actually
  about the only part that has to be installed vs just in the OSGeo4w
  folder).
 
  This is actually why I settled on helping create OSGeo Live bootable
  products and virtual machines. Of course this isn't perfect either as
  figuring out how to boot a disk or usb seems beyond some users, and the
  virtual machine still hits needing admin to install virtualization
  software.
 
  I also agree there's no reason many of the documentation efforts can't
  be shared.
 
  Thanks,
  Alex
  ___
  Discuss mailing list
  Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
  http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
 
 
 
 
  --
  Jo Cook
  Astun Technology Ltd, The Coach House, 17 West Street, Epsom, Surrey,
 KT18
  7RL, UK
  t:+44 7930 524 155
  iShare - Data integration and publishing platform
 
  *
 
  Company registration no. 5410695. Registered in England and Wales.
  Registered office: 120 Manor Green 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

2013-09-25 Thread Frank Warmerdam
Tamas,

I agree with you, Daniel and Jurgen that we would be focused on windows
though I am optimistic that OSGeo4W could also be a source for those trying
to make custom windows installers (ie. Portable GIS, what I used to do with
FWTools and possibly even Jeff with MS4W).

Once we have a PSC, we need to discuss direction and then nail a plan down
and agree to it.

Best regards,
Frank


On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Tamas Szekeres szeker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Frank,

 The RFC http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo4w/wiki/rfc1_pmc looks pretty good,
 thanks for putting that together. Once the PSC is formed, I'm keen on
 writing a second one where we could start thinking about the primary
 objectives and requirements of the system we should realize, I think we all
 have quite some ideas, and experiences in creating windows builds (both
 positive and negative) which makes it possible to find out the right
 direction to follow.

 I also think packaging on Windows is a different thing, other platforms
 may apply for a separate governance regarding to the binary distributions,
 there might be some common aspects, though.

 Best regards,

 Tamas



 2013/9/25 Frank Warmerdam warmer...@pobox.com

 Folks,

 I have initiated an RFC for a project management committee for
 OSGeo4W.  I'd encourage everyone interested in participating to joint
 the osgeo4w-dev mailing list and to continue detailed discussion
 there.

  http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/osgeo4w-dev

 I think this list (osgeo-discuss) is a great place to discuss linkages
 between different packaging efforts.

 Best regards,
 Frank


 On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Jo Cook joc...@astuntechnology.com
 wrote:
  The newest version of Portable GIS doesn't require quite so many admin
  privileges, but I've also slimmed it down dramatically so it fits on a
  smaller USB stick, so it contains a lot less software (no gvsig, no
 mysql
  etc). It is used extensively for training courses in the UK, without too
  many problems, and the new version should be better again as I have a
  windows 8 VM to test on at last.
 
  I'd like to bring Portable GIS in line with OSGeo4W and OSGeo Live- I've
  spoken to both Alex and Cameron about this in the past- but I have some
 work
  to do before that's possible- namely around documenting exactly which
 files
  I change, and also the build process. It's all in a local mercurial
  repository at the moment, but I'd really like to get it online. To be
  honest, my big concern is that I don't always have time to focus on
 things
  outside of my core work (maybe that will change post FOSS4G) and I can't
  guarantee being able to pitch in at release time, or even respond to
 issues
  in a timely manner. That's the main reason why I've kept it as a little
 pet
  project- so I'm not letting anyone else down!
 
  Sorry, didn't mean to hijack this discussion!
 
  I think it makes sense to come up with an over-arching
  project/committee/whatever that covers both OSGeo4W and OSGeo-Live, and
  maybe PortableGIS at some point, rather than separate projects. It's
 always
  better to share work rather than replicate it. Does anyone have any
  objections to that idea? Personally, I'd then sketch out the workflows
 for
  each, and figure out what make-up of committee would be required to
 oversee
  that and go through incubation.
 
  Jo
 
 
  On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alex Mandel 
 tech_...@wildintellect.com
  wrote:
 
  On 09/24/2013 12:50 AM, Johan Van de Wauw wrote:
   On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Angelos Tzotsos 
 gcpp.kal...@gmail.com
   wrote:
  
  
   Hi Daniel,
  
   I am in favor of both OSGeoLive and OSGeo4W going through a few
 weeks
   incubation process.
  
   Best,
   Angelos
  
   My own impression is that if we want to reach out to non-geek GIS
   users the ideal way would be a system like portable GIS with the
 great
   documentation of the live dvd, ie run and test the programs without
   needing to be admin or having to install different programs.
 
  I've researched this problem, talked with Jo (Current author of
  PortableGIS http://www.archaeogeek.com/portable-gis.html)
 
  There is almost no way to make this work without Admin priveleges on a
  windows machine. Some individual apps can be made to work by
 extensively
  modifying how they look for libs but many require things like a jvm to
  run on top of, or a mix of system an local libs (e.g. Visual C++ is
  required for many OSGeo4W apps and requires an install, that's actually
  about the only part that has to be installed vs just in the OSGeo4w
  folder).
 
  This is actually why I settled on helping create OSGeo Live bootable
  products and virtual machines. Of course this isn't perfect either as
  figuring out how to boot a disk or usb seems beyond some users, and the
  virtual machine still hits needing admin to install virtualization
  software.
 
  I also agree there's no reason many of the documentation efforts can't
  be shared.
 
  Thanks,
  Alex
  

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

2013-09-25 Thread Jürgen E . Fischer
Hi,

On Wed, 25. Sep 2013 at 15:36:17 -0700, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
 I agree with you, Daniel and Jurgen that we would be focused on windows
 though I am optimistic that OSGeo4W could also be a source for those trying
 to make custom windows installers (ie. Portable GIS, what I used to do with
 FWTools and possibly even Jeff with MS4W).

We already do that for QGIS - the NSIS standalone/double-click installer is
created from OSGeo4W packages.

So for me that already works quite well and I'm not really tempted to throw it
all overboard and start from scratch.


Jürgen

-- 
Jürgen E. Fischer norBIT GmbH   Tel. +49-4931-918175-31
Dipl.-Inf. (FH)   Rheinstraße 13Fax. +49-4931-918175-50
Software Engineer D-26506 Norden   http://www.norbit.de
QGIS PSC member (RM)   IRC: jef on FreeNode 


-- 
norBIT Gesellschaft fuer Unternehmensberatung und Informationssysteme mbH
Rheinstrasse 13, 26506 Norden
GF: Jelto Buurman, HR: Amtsgericht Emden, HRB 5502

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

2013-09-24 Thread Paolo Cavallini
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Il 24/09/2013 02:08, Angelos Tzotsos ha scritto:

 I am in favor of both OSGeoLive and OSGeo4W going through a few weeks 
 incubation
 process.

Hi all.
Incubation is not an issue. The problem, IMHO, is to find a good and productive
governance model. Ideas?
All the best.
- -- 
Paolo Cavallini - Faunalia
www.faunalia.eu
Full contact details at www.faunalia.eu/pc
Nuovi corsi QGIS e PostGIS: http://www.faunalia.it/calendario
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlJBM48ACgkQ/NedwLUzIr6h1wCfe52QTao6SbOl8NHI7Z49psD6
4cMAnR/5kqK/rqReWSbqErGuEbmcFt2h
=/NX2
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

2013-09-24 Thread Johan Van de Wauw
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Angelos Tzotsos gcpp.kal...@gmail.com wrote:


 Hi Daniel,

 I am in favor of both OSGeoLive and OSGeo4W going through a few weeks
 incubation process.

 Best,
 Angelos



I'd like to add that I think both projects could be working together
very closely. For me the major value in OSGeoLive are the project
overviews and quickstarts. I''ve pointed them out to many windows
users interested in open source GIS to get an overview of what is
possible with open source gis,and I'm actually basing a training on
them as well.
My own impression is that if we want to reach out to non-geek GIS
users the ideal way would be a system like portable GIS with the great
documentation of the live dvd, ie run and test the programs without
needing to be admin or having to install different programs.
My experience of building packages on windows is scanty, but if more
people support this idea I'm definitely willing to stand up and do
part of the work, if only because I'll need training material for
windows.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

2013-09-23 Thread Paolo Cavallini
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Il 22/09/2013 10:41, Daniel Morissette ha scritto:

 Personally I'd treat OSGeo4W as a software project, with a PSC, 
 committers, etc. We should do the same with OSGeo-Live actually,
 take it out of the Marketing committee and treat it as a sofware
 project which is what it si really is.
 
 Then projects (OSGeo4W and OSGeo-Live) can apply for incubation
 when they are resdy, etc.

Hi Daniel,
I see two possibilities here:
* osgeo4w is an official foundation project, and as such it does not
need to apply for incubation (it would be circular reasoning); in this
case the PSC should be appointed by the foundation, or
* it is an independent project, thus following the usual procedure; in
this case, better not to use the osgeo4w name and logo, and let the
devs self organize.
Thoughts?
All the best.
- -- 
Paolo Cavallini - Faunalia
www.faunalia.eu
Full contact details at www.faunalia.eu/pc
Nuovi corsi QGIS e PostGIS: http://www.faunalia.it/calendario
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAlJAWYEACgkQ/NedwLUzIr5mowCfR7mK5Pc4ilRIiDFcNeVhoXg6
P1AAnjXOOrS223GxtOajjoxdARUD0h1M
=qzGS
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

2013-09-23 Thread Daniel Morissette

On 13-09-23 11:08 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:


Hi Daniel,
I see two possibilities here:
* osgeo4w is an official foundation project, and as such it does not
need to apply for incubation (it would be circular reasoning); in this
case the PSC should be appointed by the foundation, or
* it is an independent project, thus following the usual procedure; in
this case, better not to use the osgeo4w name and logo, and let the
devs self organize.
Thoughts?


Hi Paolo,

Even the founding projects of OSGeo (MapServer, GRASS, MapGuide, etc.) 
did go through incubation, so I think OSGeo4W should go through the same 
path. Since it is already handled by people who know the OSGeo way it 
will simply be faster and mostly a matter of running it agains the 
checklist. If its incubation can be completed in a few weeks then that's 
just better.


Daniel

--
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/
Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

2013-09-23 Thread Angelos Tzotsos

On 09/24/2013 02:57 AM, Daniel Morissette wrote:

On 13-09-23 11:08 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:


Hi Daniel,
I see two possibilities here:
* osgeo4w is an official foundation project, and as such it does not
need to apply for incubation (it would be circular reasoning); in this
case the PSC should be appointed by the foundation, or
* it is an independent project, thus following the usual procedure; in
this case, better not to use the osgeo4w name and logo, and let the
devs self organize.
Thoughts?


Hi Paolo,

Even the founding projects of OSGeo (MapServer, GRASS, MapGuide, etc.) 
did go through incubation, so I think OSGeo4W should go through the 
same path. Since it is already handled by people who know the OSGeo 
way it will simply be faster and mostly a matter of running it agains 
the checklist. If its incubation can be completed in a few weeks then 
that's just better.


Daniel



Hi Daniel,

I am in favor of both OSGeoLive and OSGeo4W going through a few weeks 
incubation process.


Best,
Angelos

--
Angelos Tzotsos
Remote Sensing Laboratory
National Technical University of Athens
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

2013-09-22 Thread Daniel Morissette

On 13-09-22 3:44 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:

Hi all.
I agree with Tamas: we first have an issue with governance; once this is
solved, we can deal with tech issues.
Anyone a suggestion to move forward? To me, the first candidates that
come to mind are Frank, Tamas, and Juergen: anyone else?
Board, could this be a special OSGeo committee?
Thanks.



Personally I'd treat OSGeo4W as a software project, with a PSC, 
committers, etc. We should do the same with OSGeo-Live actually, take it 
out of the Marketing committee and treat it as a sofware project which 
is what it si really is.


Then projects (OSGeo4W and OSGeo-Live) can apply for incubation when 
they are resdy, etc.


--
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/
Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss