Curt wrote:

> As a project, FlightGear needs to depend on the stable releases of the
> stuff it depends on, not cvs development trees.  That get's to be too
> big of a mess.  Many distributions include the latest stable version of
> plib, and that is often easier to build.  It's ok for developers to use
> cvs versions of our dependencies, as long as they don't break
> compatibility with the latest stable version.

After about 1 second's consideration, I realized that of course this is the
only reasonable policy. Unfortunately, now I remember why I changed to using

>Martin Spott wrote:
>> "Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
>>>Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/releases
>>>In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv18174
>>>Added Files:
>>>        FlightGear-0.9.6.tar.gz 
>>>Log Message:
>>>Official source release for v0.9.6
>> I'm asking just to find out: Do we all agree that it makes much sense
>> to build the upcoming binary releases with a "crease-patched" version
>> of current PLIB CVS ?
>I will ....

So we have the situation where at least some of the current binary releases,
do not follow this policy. The Windows for one seems to accept the crease

We speak of Mathias' crease patch, but we should remember that it also
produced around 40% increase in performance, certainly for Cygwin. I would
not like to go back to the status quo ante, but I realize the very good
rationale for it.



Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to