Skip to content

Clarify installation instructions: building from source, and guidance for packagers#4780

Open
gdt wants to merge 3 commits into
OSGeo:masterfrom
gdt:feature/improve-install
Open

Clarify installation instructions: building from source, and guidance for packagers#4780
gdt wants to merge 3 commits into
OSGeo:masterfrom
gdt:feature/improve-install

Conversation

@gdt
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@gdt gdt commented May 22, 2026

This PR contains multiple commits improving the installation instructions. The big parts are rewording the start to say that it covers building from source (I almost stopped and went looking for that), and cautioning packagers about downloading and vendoring that is likely surprising and contrary to typical packaging system policy.

  • AI (Copilot or something similar) supported my development of this PR. See our policy about AI tool use. Use of AI tools must be indicated.
  • [ x] Added clear title that can be used to generate release notes

(To be clear: there was no AI. I left it, unchecked, to state affirmatively that there was none.)

Comment thread docs/source/install.rst Outdated
@gdt gdt force-pushed the feature/improve-install branch 2 times, most recently from e75e282 to 77fa356 Compare May 22, 2026 12:45
Comment thread docs/source/install.rst Outdated
@gdt gdt force-pushed the feature/improve-install branch from 77fa356 to 0a83453 Compare May 22, 2026 17:29
@gdt gdt marked this pull request as ready for review May 22, 2026 17:30
Comment thread docs/source/install.rst
Comment on lines -138 to +149
Support for Autotools was maintained until PROJ 8.2 (see :ref:`RFC7`).
PROJ 9.0 and later releases only support builds using CMake.
As of PROJ 9.0, the only build system is CMake. (The last release
with Autotools was 8.2.)
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why not just discard this entirely? Autotools is not relevant in the context of current PROJ versions. This just sounds like we're making excuses. In reality the original wording is probably a remnant of a time when we didn't offer versioned docs. If you somehow find yourself with the source code of an old PROJ you can go back to a previous version of the docs.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Doesn't really matter to be, but one point is that I was trying to edit somewhat lightly. I don't see it as making excuses so much as being clear about withdrawal timing.

The second point is that people may be coming to a new release from various old releases, perhaps with build scripts, and the build system switch is a big deal -- but it can be described in one brief sentence. README points to unversioned docs, which change, so for any given release, the online version might be from the future. I see the benefit of unconfusing someone as larger than the harm for someone who doesn't care to skip quickly over a sentence.

Happy to drop the remark about autoconf/8.2, if the three of you have a combined opinion.

Comment thread docs/source/install.rst Outdated
gdt and others added 3 commits May 26, 2026 14:16
It did, but the intro said it only addressed using package.

Note that the source build sections variously describe release
tarballs and git, and hint that either is ok.

Co-authored-by: Kristian Evers <kristian@evers.dev>
9.0 was over 4 years ago.  The previous use of autotools is now only
of historical interest.  Simply say that the build system is CMake,
with a brief historical comment.
Point out vendored code and build-time downloading that most packagers
will want to avoid.

Explain the test program compilation plan more precisely.

Note that an outdated vendored version (from 2020-08) of nlohmann/json
may be used and how to avoid it.
@gdt gdt force-pushed the feature/improve-install branch from d85ba49 to de15ed8 Compare May 26, 2026 18:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants