Alex Romosan wrote:
> Dave Culp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Just curious ... Is there any reason why OpenAl doesn't offer stable
> > releases?
> probably because it's still under development? on their web page
> ( they say they are migrating to openal 1.1 specifications.
> as such i would expect some changes in the api.

This is still bad, though.  One would expect a version 1.1 API to
remain backwards compatible with the 1.0 API.

Even worse, they changed the API for the function but don't have a
preprocessor define (that I can find) to tell the user which version
of the API it is being compiled against.  It's literally impossible
for us to support both the current version of OpenAL and the one from
last week in the C++ code (it could be done with autoconf, though).

Maybe the best thing to do is just to remove this test application
from the source tree.  Does the fgfs build still work?


Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to