Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: Approve RFC 33 - GeoTIFF - Fixing PixelIsPoint Interpretation

2010-11-22 Thread Daniel Morissette
Frank Warmerdam wrote: Folks, I haven't seen any serious concerns with proceeding with this fix and I have incorporated a few fixes. So now I'd like to motion to adopt RFC 33: http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc33_gtiff_pixelispoint I have to admit that it took me a few reads to

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: Approve RFC 33 - GeoTIFF - Fixing PixelIsPoint Interpretation

2010-11-22 Thread Howard Butler
On Nov 22, 2010, at 1:54 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote: Frank Warmerdam wrote: Folks, I haven't seen any serious concerns with proceeding with this fix and I have incorporated a few fixes. So now I'd like to motion to adopt RFC 33:

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: Approve RFC 33 - GeoTIFF - Fixing PixelIsPoint Interpretation

2010-11-22 Thread Frank Warmerdam
Howard Butler wrote: As long as we're approving (slightly) painful RFCs, what are people's thoughts on installing GDAL's includes by default in a number-prefixed directory instead of in the global directory? For example, instead of installing in /usr/local/include/gdal.h for GDAL 1.8, we'd

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: Approve RFC 33 - GeoTIFF - Fixing PixelIsPoint Interpretation

2010-11-22 Thread Ari Jolma
On 11/22/2010 10:50 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote: Howard Butler wrote: As long as we're approving (slightly) painful RFCs, what are people's thoughts on installing GDAL's includes by default in a number-prefixed directory instead of in the global directory? For example, instead of installing in

[gdal-dev] Motion: Approve RFC 33 - GeoTIFF - Fixing PixelIsPoint Interpretation

2010-11-17 Thread Frank Warmerdam
Folks, I haven't seen any serious concerns with proceeding with this fix and I have incorporated a few fixes. So now I'd like to motion to adopt RFC 33: http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc33_gtiff_pixelispoint +1 Frank Best regards, --