On 12-11-08 01:49 PM, Even Rouault wrote:
I appologise to Howard or others who have been tuning configuration logic
for a 2.0 release.
It depends on how they have tuned...
We have a small technical detail to solve with 1.10 because of
# define GDAL_VERSION_NUM
(GDAL_VERSION_MAJOR*1000+GDAL_VERSION_MINOR*100+GDAL_VERSION_REV*10+GDAL_VERSION_BUILD)
With the current definition 1.10 and 2.0 would resolve to 2000... Annoying.
So we would need to redefine it likely as
# define GDAL_VERSION_NUM
(GDAL_VERSION_MAJOR*1000000+GDAL_VERSION_MINOR*10000+GDAL_VERSION_REV*100+GDAL_VERSION_BUILD)
and 1.10 would then be 1100000 which is still greater than 2000 ...
Even,
Ugg. OK, I now remember this being one of the reasons I'm not in
favor of a 1.10 release. I'm not too fond of redefining GDAL_VERSION_NUM's
layout. I wonder if this would cause any surprising problems.
Blech
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmer...@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://home.gdal.org/warmerda
and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Software Developer
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
