Thanks for everyone who participated! I declare this motion passed with the following votes from PSC members:
+1 from EvenR, HowardB +0 from KurtS, JukkaR -0 from SeanG Idan On Fri, 26 Mar 2021, 18:57 , <matt.wil...@yukon.ca> wrote: > Thanks, that’s exactly the info I needed to get oriented. > > > > -Matt > > > > *From:* Idan Miara <i...@miara.com> > *Sent:* March 26, 2021 5:29 AM > *To:* Matt.Wilkie <matt.wil...@yukon.ca> > *Cc:* gdal dev <gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org> > *Subject:* 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 renamed into a package named osgeo_utils. > > The standalone python scripts from GDAL <= 3.1 were transformed to > osgeo.utils in GDAL 3.2. For backwards compatibility these scripts still > exist and function as tiny wrappers around the python modules. Users of > these scripts would not be effected from this RFC as the scripts would > continue to function in GDAL 3.3 in the same way as in GDAL <= 3.2. > > To allow maximum backwards compatibility, The osgeo package (which > includes the GDAL core SWIG bindings) and the osgeo_utils package will > continue to be distributed in a single sdist named gdal in pypi. > > In addition, a new pure python wheel distribution named gdal-utils will be > available in pypi under the name gdal-utils. > > This will allow users who wish to upgrade the utils without upgrading the > bindings to do so with pip install --upgrade gdal-utils (see more details > in the following sections). > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 00:11, mhw-at-yg <matt.wil...@yukon.ca> wrote: > > 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 > overview > and say what gdal-utils is and where to look at it now. For instance is it > all the files in ./gdal/swig/python/scripts/? or gdal/swig/python/osgeo/? > or > even gdal/swig/python? or somewhere else I haven't looked yet. It needn't > be > a lot words (there's so much there already it's hard for a newcomer like me > to make out the structural bones). One sentence and a link would probably > do > it. > > I am excited about the prospect of a gdal-utils sub project, whether it > remains within the core repository or is carved off into it's own. It would > be a named place where my skills have a chance of contributing little > somethings, and I could easily ignore the much larger set of things I don't > understand in GDAL proper. ;-) > > cheers, > > > > ----- > -Matt > -- > Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/GDAL-Dev-f3742093.html > _______________________________________________ > gdal-dev mailing list > gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev > >
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
