On 12 Aug 2012, at 20:44, Martin Spott wrote: >> But it's not an either/or. There could be an FGCom binary that uses the same >> code as the built-in FGCom. > > Which environment would be set up to build this separate binary ?
The fgfs one, but I don't think that's a particularly onerous requirement to build fgcom. I can't imagine there's a large use case of people who really want to build fgcom standalone, but haven't already built fgfs from source. I do absolutely agree there are reasons to keep a separate /binary/, to run on a separate machines or similar, as an option (as we do for terrasync), but again for a large number of users the easiest solution would be an 'in process' one in terms of setup, configuration - and the easiest way to achieve that is to make the (tiny) amount of fgcom code live in the fgfs source tree. Anyway, it's only an idea, and not one I have time to work on in the short term :) James ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
