Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote: > Hi, > >>From Mac OS side, there seems no problem in using headers of any > version of Boost as long as FlightGear works fine. I'll just grab it > and build FG with boost headers. No difficulties. However, if we're > going to use boost libraries before the next official release, I need > to make sure the binary works on at least some Macs, including > ppc/intel and OS X 10.4/10.5. Probably it needs some weeks to collect > feedbacks. I've just checked a change to configure.ac that checks for a minimum version of Boost, looks for it in all the right places, properly supports --with-boost, etc. I know that you don't use configure for the Mac builds, but this should ease the vast majority of problems for Linux users. > > So I want to hear Tim's (and others') opinion about: > (1) what are the pros in using Boost especially in FlightGear. > If that doesn't give us any improvement in quality (like > maintainability, testability, usability, response, performance or > whatever you name it) or functionality in a clear way, we can live > without it, at least until the next official release (or until the > next release branch is made). > I've stated this before, a couple of different times. It provides many advantages in terms of convenience and cross-platform compatibility. In terms of maintainability and testing, I consider it a great advantage to leave those things to a much larger community where possible. The use of Boost in the currently checked-in sources is completely gratuitous, but in the future it will not be. I think it's a reasonable first step, and is certainly shaking out problems :) > (2) Are we going to use boost libraries in the near future? > Hope not until the next release. Certainly not until after the release. If a library (as opposed to a header file) is useful, we should use it and solve the build issues. > > Again, I am not against using Boost at all. I just want to know how it > effects or affects FlightGear from developers' and users' viewpoints. > If it is determined to use boost, I'll do my best to keep up with > these things. If you look in the mail archives, I have stated before why I think it's a good idea. > > Plus, I ain't retrospective. PLIB era also got me a lot of troubles. > Do you remember that 0.9.10 on Mac OS X released several months after > Windows/Linux had released? 0.9.10 often crashed if ATC is on. Now I > can make FlightGear/OSG with less problem, and it works with less > crashes. So I don't think FlightGear/CVS-HEAD + OSG is not that > stable. I admit that we are still catching up with PLIB in some > functions like shadows and FG + OSG requires longer build time, it > often crash and I got some crash reports, but so what? OSG + FG give > us much more functions like multiple views, particles, and lots more. > > Best, > > Tat
Tim ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
