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

[gdal-dev] interpreting gdalcompare results

Hi, How do I find out more info on what the differences are from gdalcompare? What does "New: n" mean? $ gdalcompare source-image.tif xxx-001.tif Files differ at the binary level. Band 1 overview count difference: Golden: 0 New:5 Band 2 overview count difference: Golden: 0 New:5

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

Re: [gdal-dev] Gdal Java

Hi Paul, I find the binaries provided at https://www.gisinternals.com/release.php the easiest to use. If you click on one build, e.g. release-1928-x64-gdal-3-2-1-mapserver-7-6-2, you get a number of download options, including several installers. If you use the first one (Compiled binaries in a

Re: [gdal-dev] OSGeo.OGR.Geometry: Union the mutiple geometries at a time

Hi, I can't imagine any connection between Union and Convex/Concave hull. Union of the points in the example image is a MultiPoint geometry. The hull is a single geometry that encloses the input geometries, in this case it is a polygon. There is no need to consider hulls when doing Union. Generall