RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
36 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

Fenoy Gerald
Dear all, 
Despite I agree with you that providing the OSGeo softwares in a binary distribution is a good idea, what do you think of providing something, which may be IMO even better to the end users / developpers, let's call it a build kit or a build environment already correctly setup for integration of new versions of software or even the integration of this or that new software. I really think that it make lot of sense to provide such a thing. 

This way, any new projects become able to provide a windows version (x64 or i386, I'm not sure we should provide only x64 versions even it will be the most used, but this is another question) of their software without having to do all the work on their own as so many of us did /do already.

Let suppose that you find a bug in this or that software but you get a patch provided by the OSGeo community (whatever is the project name!), then this patch can be easilly applied on the current build environment and user / devs are able to try the result directly.

Nevertheless, I understand that it is huge work, but cannot we plan to get thz work done in a similar manner than the OSGeoLiveDVD was built. Let say by asking for volonteers to handle a specific project.

It was something I spoke about here and there (conferences mainly) as a key missing thing, so I thought that as you put this discussion on table it was perfect timming to share my thoughts on this.

Waiting for your input and comments.

If this sounds totally irrealisitic please let me say that it is not.

Best regards.

Gėrald Fenoy
http://www.osgeo.org




-------- Message d'origine --------
De : Alex Mandel <[hidden email]>
Date : 20/09/2013 22:52 (GMT+00:00)
A : Tamas Szekeres <[hidden email]>,Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]>
Cc : OSGeo Discussions <[hidden email]>,OSGeo-Board <[hidden email]>
Objet : Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO4W future


On 09/20/2013 02:45 PM, Tamas Szekeres wrote:

> 2013/9/20 Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]>
>
>> I suggest to make a Steering Committee
>> for OSGEO4W, so to have a clear roadmap, and give Windows (urgh!)
>> users a predictable environment. I think some of our million users
>> would be happy to support this effort, if they would know they
>> contribute actively to something they need.
>>
>
>
> Hi Paolo,
>
> I agree with you entrirely, as we've already been talking about this today.
> Being committed to provide usable binaries on Windows, you can count me in.
> Setting up a build environment (probably a version of a Windows Server x64
> edition with MSVC2010 for instance) providing to compile all the stuff at
> the same place would be a prerequisite.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tamas
>

I'm actually already providing such an instance and was planning to
clone it to several instances as well as a testing instance.
Frank has the keys to drive it and has been using it for several months
already.

It's part of my lab's participation in the ICA-OSGeo initiative.
http://geospatial.ucdavis.edu/resources/open-source

Thanks,
Alex

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

Alex Mandel-2
If you can come up with a way to do it on Windows I think many people
are listening. The nature of Windows and Visual Studio tends to be what
gets in the way of a more package management style system or build
environment that's easy to replicate. I see no reason there can't be a
shortcut in osgeo4w to setup source tree/libs for devs.

I'll note most end users have no idea what we're even talking about so
providing the binaries is still critically important.

Unlike OSGeoLive we can't supply VMs as that takes paid licenses for the
software in question.

Thanks,
Alex

On 09/20/2013 04:18 PM, Gérald Fenoy wrote:

> Dear all,
> Despite I agree with you that providing the OSGeo softwares in a binary distribution is a good idea, what do you think of providing something, which may be IMO even better to the end users / developpers, let's call it a build kit or a build environment already correctly setup for integration of new versions of software or even the integration of this or that new software. I really think that it make lot of sense to provide such a thing.
>
> This way, any new projects become able to provide a windows version (x64 or i386, I'm not sure we should provide only x64 versions even it will be the most used, but this is another question) of their software without having to do all the work on their own as so many of us did /do already.
>
> Let suppose that you find a bug in this or that software but you get a patch provided by the OSGeo community (whatever is the project name!), then this patch can be easilly applied on the current build environment and user / devs are able to try the result directly.
>
> Nevertheless, I understand that it is huge work, but cannot we plan to get thz work done in a similar manner than the OSGeoLiveDVD was built. Let say by asking for volonteers to handle a specific project.
>
> It was something I spoke about here and there (conferences mainly) as a key missing thing, so I thought that as you put this discussion on table it was perfect timming to share my thoughts on this.
>
> Waiting for your input and comments.
>
> If this sounds totally irrealisitic please let me say that it is not.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Gėrald Fenoy
> http://www.osgeo.org
>
>
>
> -------- Message d'origine --------
> De : Alex Mandel <[hidden email]>
> Date : 20/09/2013  22:52  (GMT+00:00)
> A : Tamas Szekeres <[hidden email]>,Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]>
> Cc : OSGeo Discussions <[hidden email]>,OSGeo-Board <[hidden email]>
> Objet : Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO4W future
>  
> On 09/20/2013 02:45 PM, Tamas Szekeres wrote:
>> 2013/9/20 Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]>
>>
>>> I suggest to make a Steering Committee
>>> for OSGEO4W, so to have a clear roadmap, and give Windows (urgh!)
>>> users a predictable environment. I think some of our million users
>>> would be happy to support this effort, if they would know they
>>> contribute actively to something they need.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Paolo,
>>
>> I agree with you entrirely, as we've already been talking about this today.
>> Being committed to provide usable binaries on Windows, you can count me in.
>> Setting up a build environment (probably a version of a Windows Server x64
>> edition with MSVC2010 for instance) providing to compile all the stuff at
>> the same place would be a prerequisite.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Tamas
>>
>
> I'm actually already providing such an instance and was planning to
> clone it to several instances as well as a testing instance.
> Frank has the keys to drive it and has been using it for several months
> already.
>
> It's part of my lab's participation in the ICA-OSGeo initiative.
> http://geospatial.ucdavis.edu/resources/open-source
>
> Thanks,
> Alex

>

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

Dave Patton-2
On 2013/09/20 16:39, Alex Mandel wrote:

> Unlike OSGeoLive we can't supply VMs as that takes paid licenses for
> the software in question.

Alex - could you please clarify what you mean by this statement.

Thanks

--
Dave Patton
Victoria, B.C.

Degree Confluence Project:
Canadian Coordinator
Technical Coordinator
http://www.confluence.org/

Personal website:
http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

Alex Mandel-2
On 09/20/2013 05:33 PM, Dave Patton wrote:
> On 2013/09/20 16:39, Alex Mandel wrote:
>
>> Unlike OSGeoLive we can't supply VMs as that takes paid licenses for
>> the software in question.
>
> Alex - could you please clarify what you mean by this statement.
>
> Thanks
>

We can't give out Windows Virtual Machine(VM) images with Visual Studio
already installed. The Licensing terms of Windows and Visual studio
don't allow for that, even if the end user has a valid license its
probably not legal. The only exception might be if we make a Windows
Azure image that can be cloned on that platform, since I believe paying
for an Azure instance automatically gives you the Windows License.

Which is different from Ubuntu (what we build OSGeoLive on top of), free
and open source software that is gratis too. We can build derivates all
we want and hand them out.

Were you thinking I meant something else?

What we can do is create an installer or scripts that makes it easier to
deploy a build environment on top of an already installed Windows, I
defer this back to being a subcomponent of osgeo4w.

Thanks,
Alex
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

pcav
On 2013-09-21 03:01, Alex Mandel wrote:

> We can't give out Windows Virtual Machine(VM) images with Visual
> Studio

I think standalone binaries are really the only way to go for the
average Win user.
Thanks for your thoughts.
--
Paolo Cavallini - Faunalia
www.faunalia.eu
Full contact details at www.faunalia.eu/pc
Nuovi corsi QGIS e PostGIS: http://www.faunalia.it/calendario
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

Pat Tressel
In reply to this post by Alex Mandel-2

If you can come up with a way to do it on Windows I think many people
are listening. The nature of Windows and Visual Studio tends to be what
gets in the way of a more package management style system or build
environment that's easy to replicate. I see no reason there can't be a
shortcut in osgeo4w to setup source tree/libs for devs.
...
Unlike OSGeoLive we can't supply VMs as that takes paid licenses for the
software in question.

I am no expert on Windows build tools but...

If the goal is a *build script* to allow just pulling a new version from a repository and building dlls or exes, then it is possible to script builds using the compilers supplied with Visual Studio.  Visual Studio supplies a shell with the appropriate environment variables and such set up.

I've used cmake scripts that referenced Visual Studio (and had to hack cmake scripts that used obsolete VS build commands and obsolete VS versions).

One does not need the full Visual Studio just for the compilers and build tools -- those are available with some of the free Visual Studio Express packages.

http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/eng/products/visual-studio-express-products

There are other compilers and build toolchains available for Windows -- e.g. MinGW -- but it seems (again, I'm not a Windows build expert...) one must use the same compiler / linker throughout, so it would likely be appropriate to pick one, and likely whichever is currently being used to build OSGEO4W executables.

On the other hand, if the goal is a *development environment* that allows people to work on the code, and debug and test, then one might want an IDE.

(I have not yet tried out Visual Studio Express as an IDE.  I use both Eclipse and Netbeans on Windows, but have not tried building native Windows executables or libraries with them.  I use them mainly for Java and Python).

Does anyone have experience using Eclipse, Netbeans, or another FOSS IDE to build native Windows binaries?  Do you use the Visual Studio (Express) compilers for that, or MinGW, or...?

The issue with providing a VM image with a preconfigured development environment doesn't seem to hinge on whether the full, licensed, non-free Visual Studio could be included, but rather the fact that one would need a license for the guest Windows OS itself.  If the developer or builder is running directly on Windows, then it's somewhat moot, so I'm guessing the VM suggestion is more for cross-compiling, or ease of installation...?

-- Pat

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

Fenoy Gerald
In reply to this post by Alex Mandel-2
Alex,
thanks a lot for such kind of answer.

In fact what I have in mind is more to provide a "build suite", I definitely don't know how to name it.

Anyway, let say something that make you able to download this or that software and which will make sure that you will get everything required to build this specific project installed in your OSGeo4W environment. I think of cmake or mingw for instance.

I think about a tool which let you set some parameters where you can define the compiler version you want to use (or the path to the script which setup environment variables, we may also think of adding some optional command line options to this batch script (if required but, I'm pretty sure it is required).

This way, you choose one software you want to build from source from the OSGeo4W, then all the dependencies will be setup (packages in their dev versions), the required tools are setup (if not already setup as another software requirement) then the build is done from the OSGeo4W installer. Obviously, the source code should still be available after the build finished. If we can provide such a thing it means that you can apply after build finish the patches you want to apply on one software before building it again with fixes.

I think it may be a great gain of time for Lazy Developers, as I am.

I hope my answer is clear enough this time.

Best regards,

Gérald Fenoy
http://www.osgeo.org


Le 21 sept. 2013 à 02:01, Alex Mandel <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> On 09/20/2013 05:33 PM, Dave Patton wrote:
>> On 2013/09/20 16:39, Alex Mandel wrote:
>>
>>> Unlike OSGeoLive we can't supply VMs as that takes paid licenses for
>>> the software in question.
>>
>> Alex - could you please clarify what you mean by this statement.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>
> We can't give out Windows Virtual Machine(VM) images with Visual Studio
> already installed. The Licensing terms of Windows and Visual studio
> don't allow for that, even if the end user has a valid license its
> probably not legal. The only exception might be if we make a Windows
> Azure image that can be cloned on that platform, since I believe paying
> for an Azure instance automatically gives you the Windows License.
>
> Which is different from Ubuntu (what we build OSGeoLive on top of), free
> and open source software that is gratis too. We can build derivates all
> we want and hand them out.
>
> Were you thinking I meant something else?
>
> What we can do is create an installer or scripts that makes it easier to
> deploy a build environment on top of an already installed Windows, I
> defer this back to being a subcomponent of osgeo4w.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

Tamas Szekeres
Gerald,

There are so many decisions that should be made regarding to either the suggested directions to follow, or the technical details, which might apply for a PSC indeed. 

You've meant to prepare something for the developers (something like what I've indended to do with the binaries at http://www.gisinternals.com/sdk/) which is probably different as what the end user would expect. Development SDKs would support to compile all versions especially the latest development version, while the production edition should be based on the latest stable releases. A testing edition would probably be based on the current development or stable branches providing daily built binaries if possible.

Switching from one version to another might also require a policy as upgrading a lower level library may definitely break the upper level binaries. Either the projects or the multiple versions of a specific project may require different versions of the same dependencies that should also be pointed out somewhere. 

We (with Jürgen and Paolo) have also been talking about whether to use a freeware compiler edition (like Visual Studio 2010 Express) which doesn't seem to contain x64 support unless a proper Windows SDK is installed or we make our life less painful to let OSGeo to purchase one license of the full version of MSVC 2010 to be installed on the VM. Furthermore  we should also evaluate all projects (to be supported by OSGeo) regarding to their need of the compilers/environments for both x86/x64 which should also be installed on the VM. 

One other decision should also be made about the suggested scripting environment to be used for automating the compilation, whether to use nmake/batch file/bash whatever and how the compilation process itself will be organized. I'm not sure I can enumerate all possible aspects but we would require quite some negotiation, and to test what works and what not (for each project).
We may also require to tweak / modify the external libraries (adding makefiles of fixing issues) which should also be tracked somewhere.

Most projects may have scripting interfaces using further dependecies required for the compilation like SWIG/Java/Python/C#. Which Java SDK or SWIG version should be used, which Python version(s) should be supported?

Is that the responsibility of the projects to provide their scripts to control the compilation of their binaries at OSGeo4w. Would that be a requirement to add their OSGeo4w build/install controller scripts along with their sources? 

Some projects may not support MSVC builds do they require a completely different framework (ie. msys/mingw) which can or cannot work along with the MSVC based dependencies or we force the project to author their nmake or cmake based makefiles as a prerequisite to be included in OSGeo4w?

We should also make sure whether the licensing model of a project (or dependency) allows or denies the inclusion of that in OSGeo4w.

And so on.... (anyone is welcomed to add further experiences or ideas) 


Best regards,

Tamas





2013/9/21 Fenoy Gerald <[hidden email]>
Alex,
thanks a lot for such kind of answer.

In fact what I have in mind is more to provide a "build suite", I definitely don't know how to name it.

Anyway, let say something that make you able to download this or that software and which will make sure that you will get everything required to build this specific project installed in your OSGeo4W environment. I think of cmake or mingw for instance.

I think about a tool which let you set some parameters where you can define the compiler version you want to use (or the path to the script which setup environment variables, we may also think of adding some optional command line options to this batch script (if required but, I'm pretty sure it is required).

This way, you choose one software you want to build from source from the OSGeo4W, then all the dependencies will be setup (packages in their dev versions), the required tools are setup (if not already setup as another software requirement) then the build is done from the OSGeo4W installer. Obviously, the source code should still be available after the build finished. If we can provide such a thing it means that you can apply after build finish the patches you want to apply on one software before building it again with fixes.

I think it may be a great gain of time for Lazy Developers, as I am.

I hope my answer is clear enough this time.

Best regards,

Gérald Fenoy
http://www.osgeo.org


Le 21 sept. 2013 à 02:01, Alex Mandel <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> On 09/20/2013 05:33 PM, Dave Patton wrote:
>> On 2013/09/20 16:39, Alex Mandel wrote:
>>
>>> Unlike OSGeoLive we can't supply VMs as that takes paid licenses for
>>> the software in question.
>>
>> Alex - could you please clarify what you mean by this statement.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>
> We can't give out Windows Virtual Machine(VM) images with Visual Studio
> already installed. The Licensing terms of Windows and Visual studio
> don't allow for that, even if the end user has a valid license its
> probably not legal. The only exception might be if we make a Windows
> Azure image that can be cloned on that platform, since I believe paying
> for an Azure instance automatically gives you the Windows License.
>
> Which is different from Ubuntu (what we build OSGeoLive on top of), free
> and open source software that is gratis too. We can build derivates all
> we want and hand them out.
>
> Were you thinking I meant something else?
>
> What we can do is create an installer or scripts that makes it easier to
> deploy a build environment on top of an already installed Windows, I
> defer this back to being a subcomponent of osgeo4w.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

Mateusz Loskot
On 21 September 2013 23:35, Tamas Szekeres <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> And so on.... (anyone is welcomed to add further experiences or ideas)

I think it may be worth to remind about CoApp:

http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/osgeo4w-dev/2013-April/002168.html

Best regards,
--
Mateusz  Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
"Participation in this whole process is a form of torture" ~~ Szalony
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

pcav
In reply to this post by Tamas Szekeres
On 2013-09-22 00:35, Tamas Szekeres wrote:

> And so on.... (anyone is welcomed to add further experiences or
> ideas) 

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.
--
Paolo Cavallini - Faunalia
www.faunalia.eu
Full contact details at www.faunalia.eu/pc
Nuovi corsi QGIS e PostGIS: http://www.faunalia.it/calendario
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

Tamas Szekeres



2013/9/22 Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]>

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?


I'd suggest Mateusz an Jeff should also be invited (if they have time). Any other who is involved in packaging Windows stuff, please feel free to check in as well.


Best regards,

Tamas



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

Daniel Morissette
In reply to this post by pcav
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
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

pcav
-----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
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

pcav
In reply to this post by Tamas Szekeres
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Il 22/09/2013 10:35, Tamas Szekeres ha scritto:

> I'd suggest Mateusz an Jeff should also be invited (if they have
> time). Any other who is involved in packaging Windows stuff, please
> feel free to check in as well.

I personally would welcome any interested and active party involved.
Please note that PSC is a subset of it, however. To me it makes not
much sense to have all devs in the PSC.
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/

iEYEARECAAYFAlJAWgQACgkQ/NedwLUzIr6JggCfYyFc10gWxhfxqLAYzsyInkt7
lA0An2yyGdmGOLU9dVePwtKUwkTepeRg
=cJGN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

Daniel Morissette
In reply to this post by pcav
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
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

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
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

pcav
-----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
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

Johan Van de Wauw
In reply to this post by Angelos Tzotsos
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Congratulations to Arnulf for Sol Katz Award 2013

Venkatesh Raghavan
In reply to this post by pcav
Hi All,

I would like to congratulate Arnulf on the Sol Katz 2013 award
in recognition of his contributions to FOSS4G and the OSGeo
Foundation.

Looking forward to his many more contributions in the years to
come.

Cheers, Arnulf.

Best

Venka


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future

Alex Mandel-2
In reply to this post by Johan Van de Wauw
On 09/24/2013 12:50 AM, Johan Van de Wauw wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
12