Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

> > -Matt > > > > *From:* Idan Miara > *Sent:* March 26, 2021 5:29 AM > *To:* Matt.Wilkie > *Cc:* gdal dev > *Subject:* Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package > > > > Hi Matt, > > > > Point noted. I've updated the Summary section: >

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

Thanks, that’s exactly the info I needed to get oriented. -Matt From: Idan Miara Sent: March 26, 2021 5:29 AM To: Matt.Wilkie Cc: gdal dev Subject: Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package Hi Matt, Point noted. I've updated the Summary section: Idan Summary This RFC sugges

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

Hi Matt, Point noted. I've updated the Summary section: Idan Summary This RFC suggests to put all the GDAL python modules (formly scripts), except from the GDAL core SWIG bindings, into their own distribution on pypi. The GDAL python sub-package osgeo.utils (introduced in GDAL 3.2) would be rena

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

Old Lane North, Broughton, Skipton, North > Yorkshire, BD23 3FD, England. > > *From:* gdal-dev *On Behalf Of *Idan > Miara > *Sent:* 25 March 2021 16:32 > *To:* Alan Snow > *Cc:* gdal dev > *Subject:* Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package > > > >

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

Having been away from gdal-dev for some years, happily existing as an end of the line tool only user, and only recently re-engaging with the development community I have nothing to say on the strength and validity the RFC. I would like to comment though that it doesn't have a high altitude overvi

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

> IMHO telling people who want to install the utils to pip install gdal-utils makes more sense... The circular dependency does make things tricky. Writing documentation sounds like the way to go in this scenario. ___ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

mited is registered in England, company number 07732946, 1 Broughton Park, Old Lane North, Broughton, Skipton, North Yorkshire, BD23 3FD, England. From: gdal-dev On Behalf Of Idan Miara Sent: 25 March 2021 16:32 To: Alan Snow Cc: gdal dev Subject: Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils packag

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

So if I currently have gdal, which includes the utils and I run pip --upgrade I will get the new gdal without the utils but not gdal-utils, so the upgrade will remove the utils functionality ? On Thu, 25 Mar 2021, Idan Miara wrote: Hi Alan, pip install gdal-utils Will install also gdal as

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

Hi Alan, pip install gdal-utils Will install also gdal as it is its dependency. In case we will take the utils out of the gdal sdist - Even tough your suggestion to add gdal-utils as a dependency to gdal would make `pip install gdal` to also install both, it makes less sense to me as gdal does no

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

It looks to me like this RFC commits the project to spending more energy on language bindings for the next few versions. I'm not enthusiastic about that, but am not super opposed. So I'm a -0. On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 1:58 PM Kurt Schwehr wrote: > +0 KurtS > > I have some vague undefined unease

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

> Removing the utils from the gdal sdist/wheel means that people who install gdal won't have the utils unless they installed the utils wheel. You mentioned that gdal_utils is now on pypi. Are you able to set it as a dependency in the setup.py so it is installed when the main osgeo/gdal python pack

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

Hi Sean, Removing the utils from the gdal sdist/wheel means that people who install gdal won't have the utils unless they installed the utils wheel. My understanding from the earlier discussion was that it is too disruptive and confusing for the average user, thus I ended up with this mix comprom

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

Hi, On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 2:51 PM Alan Snow wrote: > One recommendation I have for this RFC would be to remove gdal_utils > entirely from the main GDAL repository and into its own repository. > The main reason would be to test against multiple versions of GDAL to > ensure compatibility. Compat

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

> On Mar 24, 2021, at 2:02 PM, Even Rouault wrote: > > Hi Idan, > >> >> Motion: >> >> Adopt RFC 78: gdal-utils package (formatted version). > +1. > > Sorry for the late reply. > > I'd like some efforts on the documentation front regarding this new addition. > The new doc page hhttps://gd

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

Hi Alan, Thanks for your comment. That was actually my original idea, but while I was planning to implement it appeared that it requires much more additional work, mainly because the tests of the core and the utils are not separated and tested as a single CI pipeline. I also didn't want to make su

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

One recommendation I have for this RFC would be to remove gdal_utils entirely from the main GDAL repository and into its own repository. The main reason would be to test against multiple versions of GDAL to ensure compatibility. Compatibility across versions is a main goal of this RFC if I understa

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

+0 I have a positive feeling but unfortunately I do not really understand the topic well enough to say yes or no. -Jukka Rahkonen- Idan Miara wrote > Hi all, > > Having heard no further comments regarding RFC78 > ;. > > Motion: > > Adopt RFC 78: gdal

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

+0 KurtS I have some vague undefined unease about this. Even's comments help diminish that some. I don't see strong enough arguments for me to vote for it. On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:03 PM Even Rouault wrote: > Hi Idan, > > > Motion: > > Adopt RFC 78: gdal-utils package >

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

Hi Even, Thanks for supporting this RFC! I'd be happy to improve the documentation of this addition once it's merged. I can volunteer to be listed as the maintainer of the new package if it makes sense. Please tag me if you see a related issue that I've missed. Idan On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 at 21:03,

Re: [gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

Hi Idan, Motion: Adopt RFC 78: gdal-utils package  (formatted version). +1. Sorry for the late reply. I'd like some efforts on the documentation front regarding th

[gdal-dev] Motion: RFC 78: gdal-utils package

Hi all, Having heard no further comments regarding RFC78 . Motion: Adopt RFC 78: gdal-utils package (formatted version). *A pers