Helmut wrote: > >> i can confirm this with your recent changes in svn > >> with r45429 etc. for grass6-develbranch.
Hamish: > > fwiw, that needs to be reverted, then audited and real fixes > > committed piecemeal. it's a collection of private patches and > > hacks to get it to run on the osgeo4w stack, not project wide > > solutions. e.g. it simply comments out a problematic autoconf > > search for geos, and a bunch more like that. Martin: > I agree that some changes need to be fixed/reverted. Anyway > 80% of changes are relevant, so I do not feel that it should > be reverted all. the danger if incomplete/problematic stuff is committed, then is left in a "just commit it and we'll clean it up later" state, is that it easily gets forgotten about and the brokenness remains in svn. As has happened here. I'd agree it's a bit silly to revert the 80% G_free()s, but now that I think about it more, that should be reverted too and then recommitted with a proper commit log message explaining why the change was needed (DLL spanning problems) as it's not at all obvious and can't be commented in the code. > The winGRASS packaging is broken for more then 10 days, I don't > think that this commit made situation worse than it is now. POV choice: broken wingrass nightly build vs. new bugs for all GRASS builds... if wingrass needs special patches those should go into mswindows/osgeo4w/ and be applied at build time. re. the g.region patch, ideally osgeo4w would ship projects.h until Frank is able to ship a new version of proj4 with the pj_projects() fn exposed publicly, and we are able to adapt to whatever that is. for now I'd prefer a patch to be applied at build time to adding a #ifdef in the code, but maybe it is best to put such things into grass's include/gprojects.h? (tbc'd on the proj4 bug for that) Hamish _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev