On 10/03/2017 08:32 PM, Regina Obe wrote:
> Just curious how many projects that rely on GDAL use the C++ API are
> distributed by packages.
In Debian most packages use at least one GDAL C++ symbol:
dans-gdal-scripts C++
fiona C++
gazebo C++
gmtC
imp
>> On 10/03/2017 07:37 PM, Howard Butler wrote:
>> What if we were to do the same thing with GDAL -- take away GDAL's C++ API
>> which you were not supposed to use, but we put it out there anyway, because
>> it was inconvenient for some of the open source packaging systems? Not
>> possible becau
On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 10:33:51AM -0400, Regina Obe wrote:
> Is there a way to get rid of the shared C++ library and just have a C library
> or is that what you were talking about with the static C++ library.
That's what I'm talking about with the static-only C++ library.
The C library would t
On 10/03/2017 07:37 PM, Howard Butler wrote:
> What if we were to do the same thing with GDAL -- take away GDAL's C++ API
> which you were not supposed to use, but we put it out there anyway, because
> it was inconvenient for some of the open source packaging systems? Not
> possible because too
>
> On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Regina Obe wrote:
>
> Strk,
>
> Is there a way to get rid of the shared C++ library and just have a C library
> or is that what you were talking about with the static C++ library.
>
> That extra library I have to carry around annoys me as it's so easy for one
S
code.
Thanks,
Regina
-Original Message-
From: geos-devel [mailto:geos-devel-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of
Sandro Santilli
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 7:33 AM
To: GEOS Development List
Subject: Re: [geos-devel] [postgis-devel] RFC6 - Drop GEOS C++ API at GEOS 3.8
On Mon, Oct 02,
--Original Message-
From: geos-devel [mailto:geos-devel-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of
Sandro Santilli
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 7:33 AM
To: GEOS Development List
Subject: Re: [geos-devel] [postgis-devel] RFC6 - Drop GEOS C++ API at GEOS 3.8
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 09:02:38PM -0400,
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 09:02:38PM -0400, Regina Obe wrote:
> I've revised the RFC6 so hopefully it's more agreeable to everyone.
> https://trac.osgeo.org/geos/wiki/RFC6
That RFC introduces a configure-time switch to enable installing C++
header, but doesn't mention installing C++ library, sounds
From: geos-devel [mailto:geos-devel-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Dale
Lutz
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 7:59 PM
To: GEOS Development List
Subject: Re: [geos-devel] [postgis-devel] RFC6 - Drop GEOS C++ API at GEOS 3.8
As someone who was around in the earliest of days of GEOS, I
om: geos-devel [mailto:geos-devel-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Dale
Lutz
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 7:59 PM
To: GEOS Development List
Subject: Re: [geos-devel] [postgis-devel] RFC6 - Drop GEOS C++ API at GEOS 3.8
As someone who was around in the earliest of days of GEOS, I'd
As someone who was around in the earliest of days of GEOS, I'd like to
confirm that it was intended as a C++ port of the JTS (generally), and yes,
to be used in PostGIS ultimately.
But from the first day it was a C++ project.
I do realize the nightmare that shared packages impose as things upgrad
On 2 October 2017 at 10:08, Regina Obe wrote:
> On 2 October 2017 at 09:30, Bas Couwenberg wrote:
>> On 2017-10-02 09:13, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
As Bas said already it causes packagers headaches.
>>>
>>> So, the solution is to take the toys away from the kids...
>>>
>>>
>>> Please help u
On 2 October 2017 at 09:30, Bas Couwenberg wrote:
> On 2017-10-02 09:13, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>>>
>>> As Bas said already it causes packagers headaches.
>>
>> So, the solution is to take the toys away from the kids...
>>
>>
>> Please help us understand your point of view. Why do you want to keep
On 2 October 2017 at 09:30, Bas Couwenberg wrote:
> On 2017-10-02 09:13, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>>>
>>> As Bas said already it causes packagers headaches.
>>
>> So, the solution is to take the toys away from the kids...
>
>
> Please help us understand your point of view. Why do you want to keep the
On 2017-10-02 09:13, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
As Bas said already it causes packagers headaches.
So, the solution is to take the toys away from the kids...
Please help us understand your point of view. Why do you want to keep
the C++ API?
I like Sandros proposal to disable the C++ API by defa
-1 (as used-to-be-PSC)
> As Bas said already it causes packagers headaches.
So, the solution is to take the toys away from the kids...
Regards,
Mateusz
On 2 October 2017 at 04:49, Regina Obe wrote:
> Okay I have created an RFC6 to officially drop GEOS C++ starting at GEOS 3.8
> (so as soo
16 matches
Mail list logo
