Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-08 Thread Chris Barker
On 1/6/2011 4:25 PM, Joaquim Luis wrote: By the way, isn't there some new stuff about side by side installs or something -- that's supposed to help dll hell? I think you are referring to the manifests but here also MS has changed their mind (aleluia). VC2010 doesn't have them anymore which IMO

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-07 Thread Tamas Szekeres
2011/1/7 Jason Roberts jason.robe...@duke.edu Thanks for your thoughts. Based on them, I'd recommend the following two things be created. 1. GDAL windows installation program, or at minimum, a wiki page that says how to install the GDAL libraries and utilities (executables and Python

RE: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-07 Thread Jason Roberts
Frank, I would suggest building it as an installer .exe, perhaps using NSIS as I did for FWTools, or perhaps the method mentioned by Jurgen produces a nice installer. If possible, I would suggest the final output be a .msi (Windows Installer package) rather than a .exe. In an effort to make

RE: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-07 Thread Jason Roberts
the Win32 API is not easy for particular bindings. Jason From: Tamas Szekeres [mailto:szeker...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 5:26 AM To: Jason Roberts Cc: Frank Warmerdam; gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0 2011/1/7 Jason Roberts

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-07 Thread Joaquim Luis
On 07-01-2011 15:07, Jason Roberts wrote: Tamas, WIX looks like a great technology for building the installation package. I've never used it but I took a quick look and it seems to provide what is needed. As I understand it, you are pondering whether it would be better to have GDAL in

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-07 Thread Frank Warmerdam
On 11-01-07 10:07 AM, Jason Roberts wrote: put GDAL in Program Files\GDAL, and OSGeo4W in Program Files\OSGeo4W. Jason, I would note that OSGeo4W installs in C:\OSGeo4W by default, and there are no plans currently to change this. OSGeo4W will continue to use it's internal copy of GDAL. It

RE: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-07 Thread Jason Roberts
'; gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0 On 07-01-2011 15:07, Jason Roberts wrote: Tamas, WIX looks like a great technology for building the installation package. I've never used it but I took a quick look and it seems to provide what is needed

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-07 Thread Tamas Szekeres
2011/1/7 Jason Roberts jason.robe...@duke.edu WIX looks like a great technology for building the installation package. I’ve never used it but I took a quick look and it seems to provide what is needed. Jason, I've already used WIX many times and I'm very satisfied with it. As I

RE: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-07 Thread Jason Roberts
: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0 On 11-01-07 10:07 AM, Jason Roberts wrote: put GDAL in Program Files\GDAL, and OSGeo4W in Program Files\OSGeo4W. Jason, I would note that OSGeo4W installs in C:\OSGeo4W by default, and there are no plans currently to change this. OSGeo4W will continue to use it's

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-07 Thread Christopher Barker
On 1/6/11 7:55 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote: One question not discussed is whether GDAL should be minimalist or maximalist. That is, do we want to include as many formats as possible despite the fact that it drags in lots of supporting libraries? +1 for Maximalist. We want as many things as

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-07 Thread Jürgen E . Fischer
Hi Chris, On Fri, 07. Jan 2011 at 12:03:47 -0800, Christopher Barker wrote: On 1/6/11 8:23 PM, Jürgen E. Fischer wrote: You get a desktop link and a start menu entry that both opens a command line window from where you can use GDAL very nice. and start python with gdal available. what

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Ari Jolma
On 01/06/2011 01:18 AM, Tamas Szekeres wrote: Chris, Good points below, but having the compiled gdal binaries (and the binaries of the dependent libraries) in hand, which is the right way to install those files on Windows? (Assuming we don't provide python.exe and the related files in the

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Tamas Szekeres
2011/1/6 Ari Jolma ari.jo...@gmail.com GDAL is available but again typically as MS compiler builds - which should not be a problem in theory because the bindings use it through the C API. I've tried to use those a couple of times without luck (compiling the bindings in MinGW was the

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Jan Hartmann
Three months ago I put an announcement on the MapServer-Users list about a shell script I wrote to compile the whole MapServer-GDAL-PostGIS-PLR suite, with and without PHP/Python, in a separate user directory using only two commands. Separate installations can coexist in separate directory

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Tamas Szekeres
Jason, I appreciate the expertise for all of you along with this thread, I could already gather quite some useful information from here for this reason. I must mention that my programming practice in Python can be considered as zero, this is the main reason that my issues may have trivial

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Ari Jolma
On 01/06/2011 01:38 PM, Tamas Szekeres wrote: 2011/1/6 Ari Jolma ari.jo...@gmail.com mailto:ari.jo...@gmail.com GDAL is available but again typically as MS compiler builds - which should not be a problem in theory because the bindings use it through the C API. I've tried to use

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Tamas Szekeres
2011/1/6 Ari Jolma ari.jo...@gmail.com By the age I meant that the SDK packages are old releases (from 1310 to 1600 and not trunk for example - do I understand the release names correctly?) Ari, Those numbers are MSVC compiler numbers (according to

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Ari Jolma
On 01/06/2011 03:25 PM, Tamas Szekeres wrote: Assuming we install the gdal-perl modules in a standard location (not sure where it is), do we have a common mechanism in the perl runtime to find the dependent dlls without having to violate system wide settings (like the PATH environment

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Tamas Szekeres
Ari The only wokaround which is satisfactory to me is to set the required enviroment at run time before the gdal bindings are used. In csharp we can do something like: string path = Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable(PATH); if

RE: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Jason Roberts
become standard in Python itself, at least with the 2.x releases. Jason From: Tamas Szekeres [mailto:szeker...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 7:24 AM To: Jason Roberts Cc: gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org; Christopher Barker Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Tamas Szekeres
2011/1/6 Jason Roberts jason.robe...@duke.edu 2.Build an installation package as above. Have it install the GDAL DLLs as a subdirectory of the osgeo directory, e.g. C:\PythonXY\Lib\site-packages\osgeo\bin. Modify gdal.py to set os.environ['PATH'] = os.environ['PATH'] + ';' gdalInstallDir

RE: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Jason Roberts
...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 11:07 AM To: Jason Roberts Cc: gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0 2011/1/6 Jason Roberts jason.robe...@duke.edu 2.Build an installation package as above. Have it install the GDAL DLLs

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Christopher Barker
Lots of stuff in this thread, I'll try to contribute what I can inline: On 1/6/11 2:15 AM, Ari Jolma wrote: When I started there was only ActivePerl for Windows that was usable, but it turned out impossible for me to use because they use MS compilers. Now there is Strawberry Perl, which I might

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Ari Jolma
Tamas, In Perl the programmer can postpone loading the external DLL required by a module. Thus a similar approach is viable in Perl. But that's not how it's usually done. If you have a DLL in a system that is meant for shared use then it should be in the system PATH. Thus I believe the

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Christopher Barker
On 1/6/11 12:13 PM, Ari Jolma wrote: If you have a DLL in a system that is meant for shared use then it should be in the system PATH. Thus I believe the policy should be to set the PATH if GDAL is installed into a system I notice on my system, the dll is gdal17.dll That is, the version is

RE: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Jason Roberts
Chris, Here are some comments on specific parts of your mail: me neither, with Python (or anything Windows, for that matter). Maybe Jason knows better, but I *think* we should be OK with a standard location for GDAL. But could you have: Program Files\GDAL\1.6\gdal.dll and Program

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Christopher Barker
On 1/6/11 12:31 PM, Jason Roberts wrote: Here are some comments on specific parts of your mail: Program Files\GDAL\1.6\gdal.dll and Program Files\GDAL\1.6\gdal.dll Those would be reasonable locations for GDAL to live if the GDAL team decided to distribute the GDAL binaries using an

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Tamas Szekeres
2011/1/6 Christopher Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov I notice on my system, the dll is gdal17.dll That is, the version is part of the file name, so there shouldn't be a problem with different versions installed in the PATH. WE could even use a longer filename, like *nix systems, we're not

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Frank Warmerdam
On 11-01-06 04:42 PM, Christopher Barker wrote: On 1/6/11 12:31 PM, Jason Roberts wrote: Here are some comments on specific parts of your mail: Program Files\GDAL\1.6\gdal.dll and Program Files\GDAL\1.6\gdal.dll Those would be reasonable locations for GDAL to live if the GDAL team decided

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Christopher Barker
On 1/6/11 1:51 PM, Tamas Szekeres wrote: 2011/1/6 Christopher Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov This is where a typical dll hell problem is starting. The application is happy to load a common dll let's say a gdal17.dll, zlib1.dll, libcurl.dll whatever, but is not the same at it is expected to be (for

RE: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Jason Roberts
. Thanks, Jason -Original Message- From: gdal-dev-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:gdal-dev-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Frank Warmerdam Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 5:01 PM To: gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0 On 11-01-06 04:42 PM

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Tamas Szekeres
2011/1/6 Christopher Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov yup -- it seems long, descriptive file names would help, but that doesn't seem to be the Windows way... It would be true, but it's not a common practice of the libraries currently (assuming we keep the original dll name of each dependency).

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Frank Warmerdam
On 11-01-06 05:10 PM, Jason Roberts wrote: Frank, Thanks for sharing your opinion. I do have one question that I hope you will weigh in on. Which of the following two options seems better to you: 1. The GDAL libraries (possibly accompanied with executable programs) are installed as a

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Tamas Szekeres
2011/1/6 Jason Roberts jason.robe...@duke.edu So #3 is not better by virtue of not having to modify the bindings; it does have to modify the bindings. But #3 is appealing because setting the PATH from Python code sometimes has weird issues. For example, when I tried it in my code, it

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Joaquim Luis
On 06-01-2011 21:42, Christopher Barker wrote: On 1/6/11 12:31 PM, Jason Roberts wrote: Here are some comments on specific parts of your mail: Program Files\GDAL\1.6\gdal.dll and Program Files\GDAL\1.6\gdal.dll Those would be reasonable locations for GDAL to live if the GDAL team decided

RE: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Jason Roberts
-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0 On 11-01-06 05:10 PM, Jason Roberts wrote: Frank, Thanks for sharing your opinion. I do have one question that I hope you will weigh in on. Which of the following two options seems better to you: 1. The GDAL libraries (possibly accompanied with executable programs

RE: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Jason Roberts
1.Modify the makefiles for your SDK so that it runs release--dev\gdal\swig\python\setup.py with the bdist --formats=wininst option. This will produce an installation program such as gdal-1.7.3.win32-py2.5.exe. This is what the user will run to install the Python bindings together with a

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Christopher Barker
On 1/6/11 3:03 PM, Joaquim Luis wrote: Also a word about the best practice on Windows. I really don't see anything not even good in that practice to put them in Program Files. Having directories with blanks in their name give nothing but future problems when running command line programs (I have

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Joaquim Luis
Perhaps that's why the standard place for Python is NOT in Program Files Yes, there is wisdom. That being said, Program Files does seem to work fine for me most of the time. And for the (1 - most) times that it didn't work you knew how to fix it (enclosing the full path with ) but

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-06 Thread Frank Warmerdam
On 11-01-06 06:43 PM, Jason Roberts wrote: Frank, Thanks for your thoughts. Based on them, I'd recommend the following two things be created. 1. GDAL windows installation program, or at minimum, a wiki page that says how to install the GDAL libraries and utilities (executables and Python

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-05 Thread iomeneandrei
Hi all, for what is worth also for me the simplicity of FWTOOLS wins. Best regards, andrea - Andrea Borruso email: aborr...@tin.it website: http://blog.spaziogis.it my 2.0 life: http://aborruso.spaziogis.it feed:

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-05 Thread Christopher Barker
On 1/5/11 3:41 AM, iomeneandrei wrote: for what is worth also for me the simplicity of FWTOOLS wins. FWTools is nice, but I think with OSgeo4win, not really important. However, for simplicity, a one-click installer for just GDAL/OGR for Windows, complete with command line tools and ready for

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-05 Thread Tamas Szekeres
2011/1/5 Christopher Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov However, for simplicity, a one-click installer for just GDAL/OGR for Windows, complete with command line tools and ready for use with the python bindings (and others language bindings?) would be great. I've found it painful to find

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-05 Thread Daniel Morissette
On 11-01-05 12:44 PM, Tamas Szekeres wrote: I also wanted to include these files in an installer (or multiple installers) but at the moment I don't see the real benefit of this over extracting a single zip package, since these libraries don't require significant preparation (like regkey

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-05 Thread Christopher Barker
On 1/5/11 9:44 AM, Tamas Szekeres wrote: Supporting multiple vesions (development/stable branches/releases, x32/x64, multiple MSVC CRT dependencies) is quite a difficult task in a single installer. yes, a Major pain. I don't know that we need a single installer, but there is a lot to

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-05 Thread Tamas Szekeres
2011/1/5 Christopher Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov 1) It would be nice to have binaries for the latest release front and center at the main GDAL site -- having to poke around to find Tamas's site is not a big deal, but not always obvious. Chris, With regards to the comment above, while I'm

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-05 Thread Tamas Szekeres
2011/1/5 Daniel Morissette dmorisse...@mapgears.com I agree with you, but it seems that an [OK] button (even if it doesn't do anything) makes Windows users feel so much better. :) Daniel, :-) And sometimes we wonder what a heck is being done behind an OK button on Windows which takes so

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-05 Thread Christopher Barker
It may well be that GDAL has too many different use cases to even have a standard install, but... On 1/5/11 1:37 PM, Tamas Szekeres wrote: 2011/1/5 Christopher Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov 1) It would be nice to have binaries for the latest release front and center at the main GDAL

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-05 Thread Frank Warmerdam
Folks, Wow, what a lot of discussion. From my perspective, I'm pleased with Tamas' provided binaries as a source for developers who want a GDAL SDK for a particular compiler version and choice of win32/win64. I like Jurgen's idea of building a stock GDAL binaries package with an installer

RE: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-05 Thread Jason Roberts
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0 2011/1/5 Christopher Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov 1) It would be nice to have binaries for the latest release front and center at the main GDAL site -- having to poke around to find Tamas's site is not a big deal, but not always obvious

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-05 Thread Tamas Szekeres
2011/1/5 Jason Roberts jason.robe...@duke.edu Right now, to install the latest GDAL for Python on Windows, the user has to download a zip file from http://vbkto.dyndns.org/sdk/, drill in to find the Python files, copy them to C:\PythonXX\Lib\site-packages, drill into find the GDAL binaries

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-05 Thread Tamas Szekeres
Chris, Good points below, but having the compiled gdal binaries (and the binaries of the dependent libraries) in hand, which is the right way to install those files on Windows? (Assuming we don't provide python.exe and the related files in the package)? I mean which install actions should be done

RE: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-05 Thread Jason Roberts
@lists.osgeo.org; Christopher Barker Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0 2011/1/5 Jason Roberts jason.robe...@duke.edu Right now, to install the latest GDAL for Python on Windows, the user has to download a zip file from http://vbkto.dyndns.org/sdk/, drill in to find

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-05 Thread Christopher Barker
On 1/5/11 2:32 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote: From my perspective, I'm pleased with Tamas' provided binaries as a source for developers who want a GDAL SDK for a particular compiler version and choice of win32/win64. yes, those are great! Like some others, I'm also confused by the correct way

Re: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-05 Thread Jürgen E . Fischer
Hi Frank, On Wed, 05. Jan 2011 at 17:32:42 -0500, Frank Warmerdam wrote: Is there someone that wants to take on producing official GDAL binaries from OSGeo4W with a self installer sort of similar to FWTools, likely using the mechanism Jurgen described? I'm interested, but interest hasn't

Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] FWTools and GDAL 1.7.0

2011-01-04 Thread Livneh Yehiyam
Hi Frank I personally will be happy to see FWTOOLS updated at least for major Gdal releases. I find it to be a much simpler way to distribute Gdal to my end users. I agree that OSGeo4W is more complete, but I think that for many users the simplicity of FWTOOLS wins. Thanks Yehiyam Livneh From: