James Turner wrote:
> 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.
No ? FGCom is a perfect match for BeagleBoard-style computers and I
know this actually had been one of the development goals, so you could
have your radio comms in a neat interface box, no matter which hardware
is running FlightGear.
As a preparatory step, if you're really planning to shift FGCom into
FG, then it's probably worth considering the 'cost' of porting
FlightGear, at least those parts of the build system which would be
required to build FGCom, to a stripped-down Linux on ARM ;-)
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
