proj@xserve.flids.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: Fedora package for grass and a few libraries
Reply-To:
Hallo!
I created a grass 5.7 package for fedora version 2 and a few library
packages (gdal, proj and shapelib) which are normally necessary when
you want use free GIS software 
You can download the Spec-files with the patches as well as srpms
and rpms from
http://ftp.intevation.de/users/silke/packages/fedora/
They are located in SPECS, SOURCES, RPMS and SRPMS respectivly.
Please feel free to test the packages and make comments on them.
Many greetings,
Silke
P.S.: Sorry for cross posting. I am aware that most of you will be
on more than one of those lists.
--
Silke Reimer
Intevation GmbH http://intevation.de/
FreeGIS http://freegis.org/
Hallo!
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 05:03:45PM +0200, Silke Reimer wrote:
proj@xserve.flids.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: Fedora package for grass and a few libraries
Reply-To:
Hallo!
I created a grass 5.7 package for fedora version 2 and a few library
packages (gdal, proj and shapelib) which are normally necessary when
you want use free GIS software
You can download the Spec-files with the patches as well as srpms
and rpms from
http://ftp.intevation.de/users/silke/packages/fedora/
They are located in SPECS, SOURCES, RPMS and SRPMS respectivly.
Please feel free to test the packages and make comments on them.
I thought about how to maintain ressources to build a GRASS rpm
package for different GNU/Linux distribution. So far we have a
grass.spec for Mandrake into the CVS made by Markus. I announced a
specfile for Fedora 2 yesterday on this list. This specfile is based
on the same source as Markus grass.spec (basically coming from the
originally FreeGIS CD grass5.0.spec), but is slightly different.
This covers mainly
- package dependencies (I can assume for example, that gdal and proj
are existent as packages, while this doesn't hold true for Mandrake)
- a special readline patch which is not necessary for Mandrake but
for Fedora 2 (see [1]).
Therefor I suggest to add a rpm directory in the GRASS CVS
containing two directories: SPECS with different specfiles and
SOURCES containing all distributions specific patches. Thus people
who prepare packages for special distributions can easily maintain
there package.
Any comments?
Greetings,
Silke
[1] http://www.intevation.de/rt/webrt?serial_num=2526&display=History
--
Silke Reimer
Intevation GmbH http://intevation.de/
FreeGIS http://freegis.org/
If there are no further suggestions,
I would put in the work in the next days
to create the following structures in the grass51 CVS module:
rpm/
specs/
patches/
and move
grass.spec
to
rpm/specs/grass.mandrake.spec
Radim, Markus: Is that okay for you?
Best,
Bernhard
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:19:39PM +0200, Silke Reimer wrote:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 05:03:45PM +0200, Silke Reimer wrote:
> I created a grass 5.7 package for fedora version 2 and a few library
> packages
> You can download the Spec-files with the patches as well as srpms
> and rpms from
> http://ftp.intevation.de/users/silke/packages/fedora/
> They are located in SPECS, SOURCES, RPMS and SRPMS respectivly.
I suggest to add a rpm directory in the GRASS CVS
containing two directories: SPECS with different specfiles and
SOURCES containing all distributions specific patches. Thus people
who prepare packages for special distributions can easily maintain
there package.
Any comments?
On Monday 12 July 2004 12:55, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
If there are no further suggestions,
I would put in the work in the next days
to create the following structures in the grass51 CVS module:
rpm/
specs/
patches/
and move
grass.spec
to
rpm/specs/grass.mandrake.spec
Radim, Markus: Is that okay for you?
Best,
Bernhard
Why patches? Why cannot it be fixed directly in original source files?
Radim
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:19:39PM +0200, Silke Reimer wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 05:03:45PM +0200, Silke Reimer wrote:
> > I created a grass 5.7 package for fedora version 2 and a few library
> > packages
> >
> > You can download the Spec-files with the patches as well as srpms
> > and rpms from
> > http://ftp.intevation.de/users/silke/packages/fedora/
> > They are located in SPECS, SOURCES, RPMS and SRPMS respectivly.
>
> I suggest to add a rpm directory in the GRASS CVS
> containing two directories: SPECS with different specfiles and
> SOURCES containing all distributions specific patches. Thus people
> who prepare packages for special distributions can easily maintain
> there package.
>
> Any comments?
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:09:08PM +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:
On Monday 12 July 2004 12:55, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> If there are no further suggestions,
> I would put in the work in the next days
> to create the following structures in the grass51 CVS module:
> rpm/
> specs/
> patches/
> and move
> grass.spec
> to
> rpm/specs/grass.mandrake.spec
>
> Radim, Markus: Is that okay for you?
>
> Best,
> Bernhard
Why patches? Why cannot it be fixed directly in original source files?
Fixing the original sources files (in grass or upstream) is always prefered.
Silke did that where possible, see bug 2525.
However there are a couple of reasons where this cannot be done fast
and then I consider using a platform dependend patch
until grass or upstream fixed the problem reasonable.
Could be highly pattform dependend,
e.g. The readline patch for fedora2, see bug 2526
it is not directly accepted in GRASS,
because of more problems. The patch solves this
issue reliably for fedora2, though and I do not see
a reason why we should stop people from using those
build information.
Upstream delay,
becaused upstream might need more time to accept it
or again the problem depends on one platform.
The shapelib ord gdal patch could be such an example.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:55:44PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
If there are no further suggestions,
I would put in the work in the next days
to create the following structures in the grass51 CVS module:
rpm/
specs/
patches/
and move
grass.spec
to
rpm/specs/grass.mandrake.spec
We could also do
packaging
debian
mandrake
fedora
and then
move debian to
packaging/debian
move grass.spec to
packaging/mandrake/grass.spec
if patches are necessary because of the dependencies we could
place them in the subdirectory specific to the distribution.
Radim: What do you prefer?
On Tuesday 31 August 2004 15:29, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:55:44PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> If there are no further suggestions,
> I would put in the work in the next days
> to create the following structures in the grass51 CVS module:
> rpm/
> specs/
> patches/
> and move
> grass.spec
> to
> rpm/specs/grass.mandrake.spec
We could also do
packaging
debian
mandrake
fedora
and then
move debian to
packaging/debian
move grass.spec to
packaging/mandrake/grass.spec
if patches are necessary because of the dependencies we could
place them in the subdirectory specific to the distribution.
Radim: What do you prefer?
I don't have any preferences in this case.
Radim
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 05:03:51PM +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:
On Tuesday 31 August 2004 15:29, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:55:44PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > If there are no further suggestions,
> > I would put in the work in the next days
> > to create the following structures in the grass51 CVS module:
> > rpm/
> > specs/
> > patches/
> > and move
> > grass.spec
> > to
> > rpm/specs/grass.mandrake.spec
>
> We could also do
> packaging
> debian
> mandrake
> fedora
>
> and then
> move debian to
> packaging/debian
> move grass.spec to
> packaging/mandrake/grass.spec
>
> if patches are necessary because of the dependencies we could
> place them in the subdirectory specific to the distribution.
>
> Radim: What do you prefer?
I don't have any preferences in this case.
I think I'll go with the packaging structure then.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 06:24:34PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 05:03:51PM +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 August 2004 15:29, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:55:44PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > > If there are no further suggestions,
> > > I would put in the work in the next days
> > > to create the following structures in the grass51 CVS module:
> > > rpm/
> > > specs/
> > > patches/
> > > and move
> > > grass.spec
> > > to
> > > rpm/specs/grass.mandrake.spec
> >
> > We could also do
> > packaging
> > debian
> > mandrake
> > fedora
> >
> > and then
> > move debian to
> > packaging/debian
> > move grass.spec to
> > packaging/mandrake/grass.spec
> >
> > if patches are necessary because of the dependencies we could
> > place them in the subdirectory specific to the distribution.
> >
> > Radim: What do you prefer?
>
> I don't have any preferences in this case.
I think I'll go with the packaging structure then.
Sorry, I only read this now: I think that it isn't a good idea to
move the debian directory into pacakges since building a debian
package requires the debian folder to be into the main folder. Thus
moving debian away would complicate things to the debian developer.
I would suggest:
debian
rpm
mandrake
fedora
etc.
Silke
--
Silke Reimer
Intevation GmbH http://intevation.de/
FreeGIS http://freegis.org/
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 02:11:28PM +0200, Silke Reimer wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 06:24:34PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 05:03:51PM +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:
> > On Tuesday 31 August 2004 15:29, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:55:44PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > > > If there are no further suggestions,
> > > > I would put in the work in the next days
> > > > to create the following structures in the grass51 CVS module:
> > > > rpm/
> > > > specs/
> > > > patches/
> > > > and move
> > > > grass.spec
> > > > to
> > > > rpm/specs/grass.mandrake.spec
> > >
> > > We could also do
> > > packaging
> > > debian
> > > mandrake
> > > fedora
> > >
> > > and then
> > > move debian to
> > > packaging/debian
> > > move grass.spec to
> > > packaging/mandrake/grass.spec
> > >
> > > if patches are necessary because of the dependencies we could
> > > place them in the subdirectory specific to the distribution.
> > >
> > > Radim: What do you prefer?
> >
> > I don't have any preferences in this case.
>
> I think I'll go with the packaging structure then.
Sorry, I only read this now: I think that it isn't a good idea to
move the debian directory into pacakges since building a debian
package requires the debian folder to be into the main folder. Thus
moving debian away would complicate things to the debian developer.
This would give Debian a preferance over the other distributions
in that they always must probable move or rename the spec files.
If other Debian based distributions or other packaging formats
are targeted we might grow a few more top level directories,
which could be unwanted.
I could do it as you suggest and then when the problem arises
this could be evaluated again.
Any other opinions?
I would suggest:
debian
rpm
mandrake
fedora
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 03:58:15PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 02:11:28PM +0200, Silke Reimer wrote:
> I would suggest:
>
> debian
> rpm
> mandrake
> fedora
Done now.