On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 09:46:21AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >On 11/7/2011 8:18 AM, Jussi Kantola wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: >>> You should probably do that, to ensure that the build procedure works on >>> your machine. Also, to test the resuts; I have no idea how to use this >>> stuff. >> >> It builds fine, and the resulting installation works fine when I put >> some sky catalogs in /usr/share/astrometry/data/. > >Good news. Please post *your* rebuilt packages somewhere, so they can >be uploaded. > >> The question >> becomes, would it be better to create a separate package >> (astrometry.net-data-tycho or such) for the (example/test) catalogs, >> than to have them in the binary/source packages? Theoretically, and I >> suppose in eventual actuality as well, there could be many different >> sets of catalogs, so separate packaging sounds like the way to go ... > >Definitely separate. However, it may be best not to create any catalog >packages at all, and instead provide helper scripts (in >/usr/lib/astrometry/scripts/ ?) to d/l and install the individual >catalogs. The reason for this suggestion is twofold. > >First, if you create a cygwin package containing the data from catalog >"foo", then cygwin will be *redistributing* that data. However, many >scientific databases of this sort, while free (gratis) to use, prohibit >redistribution -- everybody is required to get them directly from the >source. So, for this sort of catalog, a helper script to enable the >end-user to do THAT is the only solution. > >Second, these catalogs are HUGE. 70GB? 25GB? That's 10 to 30 times the >size of the entire cygwin distribution, source and all -- for one >catalog. Our mirrors probably won't accept that.
I've been trying not to offer an opinion here but it isn't clear to me why so many people voted +1 for this package. It seems like we're adding a huge package to the distribution just to help out a very miniscule user base. Do we really need this package in the Cygwin distribution? cgf