thanks, glynn, for the quick response. some more comments and questions inline:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 03:37:26AM +0100, Glynn Clements wrote: > > 1. v.in.dwg is the only module available > > Correct. > > > 2. it can only be used by compiling from source > > Correct. > > The licences for GRASS and the OpenDWG library are incompatible, so > it's impossible to distribute a binary which satisfies both licences. understood. the ideal scenario in this situation, of course, would be some kind of "one step" integrability in which, once a user has obtained the library source from the opendesign alliance, v.in.dwg would be compiled and integrated automatically with GRASS. > > 4. the approach is to unarchive the Toolkit into a folder, and then to > > run ./configure like so: > > > > ./configure \ > > ... \ > > --with-opendwg \ > > --with-opendwg-includes=/home/usr1/opendwg27 \ > > --with-opendwg-libs=/home/usr1/opendwg27 > > You need to build the OpenDWG library first. really? both some (original?) versions of the v.in.dwg instructions, and the opendwg toolkit manuals, seem to imply that the .h and .a libraries (really just 4 files) are already built, and just need to be linked into v.in.dwg's compilation. am i missing something? > > 5. and then to compile GRASS from scratch > > If you already have a precompiled version of GRASS 6.3, you can > probably build just v.in.dwg with e.g.: > > make -C vector/v.in.dwg MODULE_TOPDIR=/usr/local/grass-6.3.cvs > > 6.2.2 doesn't include the Makefile fragments (include/Make/*.make), so > you can't easily build individual modules outside of the source tree. ok. i actually currently only have a precompiled version of 6.2.1. so here's my questions: how stable is 6.3? is it appropriate for enduser use? the major installation hassle with GRASS seems to be getting all the dependencies worked out. so if i install a precompiled 6.2.2 on (say) xubuntu, and then recompile just GRASS with the new libraries, will that avoid most of the hassles? goodness, it would be nice to have a script to do this! > > is this correct? will this process work with 6.2.2? is there any > > movement on using DWGDirect, which is the only way to be compatible with > > more recent versions of AutoCAD? > > Someone who has the DWGDirect library will need to provide the code. > > I'm not sure whether any of the active developers have either of the > DWG libraries (the original author of v.in.dwg, Radim Blazek, is no > longer an active developer). i'd be happy to provide the library code to developer(s) to update v.in.dwg; it would be a collaborative partnership with our organization, thus within the legal constraints of the license. if this is a real possibility, whom would i contact? > The licensing conditions for the various DWG libraries (and the fact > that AutoDesk goes to significant lengths to inhibit compatibility) > tend to suppress interest. i certainly understand that. at the same time, an enormous amount of GIS-related information is stored in DWG files. are there other ways to convert such information to more easily GRASS-readable data? thanks, .b _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
