since nobody answered to my mail concerning the continuation of the
mailing list archive at http://op.gfz-potsdam.de/GRASS-List I have to
send the bad news that with end of next week no further correspondence
will be added and by end of this month it will be closed (deleted!!!).
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:25:57PM +0100, Stephan Eickschen wrote:
since nobody answered to my mail concerning the continuation of the
mailing list archive at http://op.gfz-potsdam.de/GRASS-List I have to
send the bad news that with end of next week no further correspondence
will be added and by end of this month it will be closed (deleted!!!).
Hi Stephan,
first thanks for hosting an archive for this list for so long!
How much data is there in total to be saved.
Even if we cannot find somebody to host it yet,
we might at least save the current archive in a state that
is easy to reconstruct once we find someone to host it again.
How much data is there in total to be saved.
Even if we cannot find somebody to host it yet,
we might at least save the current archive in a state that
is easy to reconstruct once we find someone to host it again.
53Mbyte uncompressed Unix mail file, gzipped 12.5Mbyte...
> How much data is there in total to be saved.
> Even if we cannot find somebody to host it yet,
> we might at least save the current archive in a state that
> is easy to reconstruct once we find someone to host it again.
53Mbyte uncompressed Unix mail file, gzipped 12.5Mbyte...
The gzipped file will be in a FTP server??
Well, I can't host the list because my lab doesn't have a
server yet.
But I(and anobody else who want it) can keep the backup
until a new server comes up, ok?
Cheers.
--
Oceanographer Christian dos Santos Ferreira
Lab. of Fisheries Reaserch and Hydroacoustics
Departament of Oceanography
Federal University of Rio Grande (FURG)
Av. Italia km 8 s/n - Campus Carreiros
Caixa Postal 474 - CEP 96203-000
Rio Grande - RS - Brazil
Phone: (53) 233-6528 - Fax: (53) 233-6601
On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 09:12, Stephan Eickschen wrote:
> How much data is there in total to be saved.
> Even if we cannot find somebody to host it yet,
> we might at least save the current archive in a state that
> is easy to reconstruct once we find someone to host it again.
53Mbyte uncompressed Unix mail file, gzipped 12.5Mbyte...
Not sure that I understand this. I thought that there was a web page
involved here.
If it is just a matter of saving the mail and accumulating the messages
that come in I might be able to help.
But, if there is web page involved than I do not think I can offer any
help as I do not have a web server that is available for the archive.
Can you explain how this archive works so we can understand the process
to better evaluate possible resources?
On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 09:12, Stephan Eickschen wrote:
> > How much data is there in total to be saved.
> > Even if we cannot find somebody to host it yet,
> > we might at least save the current archive in a state that
> > is easy to reconstruct once we find someone to host it again.
> 53Mbyte uncompressed Unix mail file, gzipped 12.5Mbyte...
Not sure that I understand this. I thought that there was a web page
involved here.
If it is just a matter of saving the mail and accumulating the messages
that come in I might be able to help.
But, if there is web page involved than I do not think I can offer any
help as I do not have a web server that is available for the archive.
Can you explain how this archive works so we can understand the process
to better evaluate possible resources?
To quote marc.theaimsgroup.com,
"If you can include pointers to existing list archives or some other way
for us to get our hands on old messages, we'll back-fill our database when
we add the list, so it'll start out with some history."
They archive all of the *BSD, KDE, Apache, Postgresql, OpenSSL and Samba
mailing lists.
Just a simple question: Why the GRASS release candidates
(in this case: GRASS 5.0.3) are not distributed like binaries.
In my opinion binaries would be more easy for newbies to test/install
and return bugs.
I already compiled GRASS, but this may exclude many people that
could help testing the release candidates (and maybe the unstable versions).
Please, I don't wanna make anybody angry, it's just my opinion.
Cheers.
--
Oceanographer Christian dos Santos Ferreira
Lab. of Fisheries Reaserch and Hydroacoustics
Departament of Oceanography
Federal University of Rio Grande (FURG)
Av. Italia km 8 s/n - Campus Carreiros
Caixa Postal 474 - CEP 96203-000
Rio Grande - RS - Brazil
Phone: (53) 233-6528 - Fax: (53) 233-6601
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 05:04:48PM -0200, Christian s. Ferreira wrote:
Hi List,
Just a simple question: Why the GRASS release candidates
(in this case: GRASS 5.0.3) are not distributed like binaries.
That's a good question. I would appreciate if there were binaries.
The main problems is that I cannot do that alone. Only if more people
jump in and prepare such binaries we can provide them.
In my opinion binaries would be more easy for newbies to test/install
and return bugs.
Definitely.
I already compiled GRASS, but this may exclude many people that
could help testing the release candidates (and maybe the unstable versions).
Please, I don't wanna make anybody angry, it's just my opinion.
It's a valid point. We simply need more people for
- updating the web pages
- creating binary packages for various platforms (tar.gz)
- create RPMs and debian packages
- perform testing
- help in polishing the code in 5.3/5.7
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 05:04:48PM -0200, Christian s. Ferreira wrote:
Hi List,
Just a simple question: Why the GRASS release candidates
(in this case: GRASS 5.0.3) are not distributed like binaries.
That's a good question. I would appreciate if there were binaries.
The main problems is that I cannot do that alone. Only if more people
jump in and prepare such binaries we can provide them.
Where do I become a candidate or get involved with that? But
I must say that I just use Linux on Intel PC's.
In my opinion binaries would be more easy for newbies to test/install
and return bugs.
Definitely.
I already compiled GRASS, but this may exclude many people that
could help testing the release candidates (and maybe the unstable versions).
Please, I don't wanna make anybody angry, it's just my opinion.
It's a valid point. We simply need more people for
- updating the web pages
- creating binary packages for various platforms (tar.gz)
- create RPMs and debian packages
- perform testing
- help in polishing the code in 5.3/5.7
Well, I'm not a programmer, and not a web designer either, so I can
help creating binaries, build RPM packages (now I use Red Hat 9.0), and
of course testing, in my spare time.
There is a lot of things in that list. How do I start there?
Best regards
Markus Neteler
Cheers
--
Oceanographer Christian dos Santos Ferreira
Lab. of Fisheries Reaserch and Hydroacoustics
Departament of Oceanography
Federal University of Rio Grande (FURG)
Av. Italia km 8 s/n - Campus Carreiros
Caixa Postal 474 - CEP 96203-000
Rio Grande - RS - Brazil
Phone: (53) 233-6528 - Fax: (53) 233-6601
How much data is there in total to be saved.
Even if we cannot find somebody to host it yet,
we might at least save the current archive in a state that
is easy to reconstruct once we find someone to host it again.
53Mbyte uncompressed Unix mail file, gzipped 12.5Mbyte...
The gzipped Mail file can find at ftp://ftp.dfd.dlr.de/put/eicksch/GRASS-List-200310.gz
Everbody is welcome to download it at use it for his purpos. The web
archive (currently) takes 57.411 MByte. If anybody would like to set
it up like I did it for the (moved) GMT Mailing List Archive at http://wegener.mechanik.tu-darmstadt.de/GMT-Help/
I will try to give any possible assistance using procmail/hypermail.
Any other way (such as using a web site which hosts many archives)
will have to be done by somebody else.
On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 09:12, Stephan Eickschen wrote:
How much data is there in total to be saved.
Even if we cannot find somebody to host it yet,
we might at least save the current archive in a state that
is easy to reconstruct once we find someone to host it again.
53Mbyte uncompressed Unix mail file, gzipped 12.5Mbyte...
Not sure that I understand this. I thought that there was a web page
involved here.
If it is just a matter of saving the mail and accumulating the messages
that come in I might be able to help.
But, if there is web page involved than I do not think I can offer any
help as I do not have a web server that is available for the archive.
Can you explain how this archive works so we can understand the process
to better evaluate possible resources?
To quote marc.theaimsgroup.com,
"If you can include pointers to existing list archives or some other way for us to get our hands on old messages, we'll back-fill our database when we add the list, so it'll start out with some history."
They archive all of the *BSD, KDE, Apache, Postgresql, OpenSSL and Samba mailing lists.
-M
_________________________________
Protegido - Inflex com uvscan antivirus
Linux - Sendmail
I have a good binary of grass5.0.3rc5 on cygwin (thanks to Glynn's tireless help) that I would like to contribute to the mix, but i have one peculiarity that I think should be cleaned up:
I configure with
--prefix=/usr/local/grass5.0.3rc5
but it insist on creating in install directory of:
/usr/local/grass5.0.3rc5/grass5
Where is the /grass5 coming from? What's the protocol for a release candidate install directory?
As always- thanks for your patience and help.
Best regards,
Rich
Richard W. Greenwood, PLS
Greenwood Mapping, Inc.
Rich <at> GreenwoodMap <dot> com
(307) 733-0203 http://www.GreenwoodMap.com
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 08:25:11AM -0200, Christian S. Ferreira wrote:
Hi again,
>On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 05:04:48PM -0200, Christian s. Ferreira wrote:
>
>>Hi List,
>>
>> Just a simple question: Why the GRASS release candidates
>>(in this case: GRASS 5.0.3) are not distributed like binaries.
>>
>
>That's a good question. I would appreciate if there were binaries.
>The main problems is that I cannot do that alone. Only if more people
>jump in and prepare such binaries we can provide them.
>
Where do I become a candidate or get involved with that? But
I must say that I just use Linux on Intel PC's.
Just go ahead. That's what everybody should do: don't wait to be
personally invited, just provide results
[...]
>It's a valid point. We simply need more people for
>- updating the web pages
>- creating binary packages for various platforms (tar.gz)
>- create RPMs and debian packages
>- perform testing
>- help in polishing the code in 5.3/5.7
>
>
>
Well, I'm not a programmer, and not a web designer either, so I can
web designer: it's plain HTML, written with 'joe', sometimes xemacs,
sometimes nedit. Keep it simple is the concept (which is not yet followed
everywhere on the web site).
help creating binaries, build RPM packages (now I use Red Hat 9.0), and
of course testing, in my spare time.
That's great.
>http://grass.itc.it/help-wanted.html
>(also this page could be more exciting!)
>
>
>
There is a lot of things in that list. How do I start there?
Whereever you want. There are no fixed rules to contribute.
Please announce contributions on the appropriate GRASS mailing
list to make the others aware of it.
I have a good binary of grass5.0.3rc5 on cygwin (thanks to Glynn's tireless
help) that I would like to contribute to the mix, but i have one
peculiarity that I think should be cleaned up:
I configure with
--prefix=/usr/local/grass5.0.3rc5
but it insist on creating in install directory of:
/usr/local/grass5.0.3rc5/grass5
Where is the /grass5 coming from?
It's hardcoded into Makefile.in (and possibly some other places):
INST_DIR= ${prefix}/grass@NAME_VER@
IOW, for --prefix=/usr/local (the default), GISBASE is
/usr/local/grass5; for --prefix=/opt, it's /opt/grass5 etc.
The way that configure handles --prefix etc is designed for typical
Unix programs which get installed into the various system (e.g.
/usr/local/bin, /usr/local/lib, /usr/local/include etc), rather than
those which install under a single root.
If you want to name the installation point something other than
"grass5", the simplest solution is simply to move it post-installation
and change the value of GISBASE in the grass5 script.
It's a valid point. We simply need more people for
- updating the web pages
- creating binary packages for various platforms (tar.gz)
- create RPMs and debian packages
I have grass-5.0.3rc? packages, but I don't like to put more files up on
our web server than necessary, as we pay quite a bit for bandwidth, so I
stick to providing grass51/57 RPMs built from CVS weekly.
I could also provide grass53 cvs RPMS and grass5.0.3rc's, but I would
prefer it go somewhere else.
I will build grass-5.0.3 final for at least Mandrake 9.2, maybe 9.1 if
it is released when I still have a box I can test on, and make them
available on the free Mandrake Club mirrors.
I am currently running 5.0.3rc3 on my cooker box (just have been to busy
to try 5.0.3rc5 yet).
Thank you, I will be back when get some results .
Bye list.
--
Oceanographer Christian dos Santos Ferreira
Lab. of Fisheries Reaserch and Hydroacoustics
Departament of Oceanography
Federal University of Rio Grande (FURG)
Av. Italia km 8 s/n - Campus Carreiros
Caixa Postal 474 - CEP 96203-000
Rio Grande - RS - Brazil
Phone: (53) 233-6528 - Fax: (53) 233-6601
