On 8 Sep 2013, at 17:34, Markus Wanner <mar...@bluegap.ch> wrote:
> > I'm aware of the upcoming release, eagerly awaiting it, and have already > started packing. Given the decision to slip the 2.12 release, I decided > to move on with 2.10 rather than wait another month, though. > > I'll certainly focus on 2.12 as soon as it's released. I don't think it > changes a lot WRT portability, though. Do you? Not that I'm aware of. > > There are a few areas where I could need help or need to feed patches > back. You could take a look at the patches currently applied to 2.10. > I was under the impression all patches had been up streamed - the correct process here is to file merge requests and email here (since unfortunately Gitorious merge requests don't notify people) Or you can simply email diffs here / to me, but either way the patches can be applied. > Another issue I run into was the mixture of GPL vs LGPL in simgear. I > personally don't care much, really. As a packager, though, I'd > appreciate if at least all the files that are under copyright by the > flightgear authors were released under the same license. (IANAL, but > given there are GPL files in simgear, my understanding is that the > entire library can only be used under the terms of the (more > restrictive) GPL, rather than LGPL). This is a bug in our code. We have files with missing licenses, files which were moved between FG and SG, and files which were contributed public domain. However 'the license' for SimGear is LGPL and for FlightGear, GPL version 2 (or later at discretion, but we don't require version 3). Patches to clean up the situation are welcome. Given the license file and docs have always been clear which license each project is under, I think it is safe to consider file-level discrepancies as bugs and standardise. > > Another thing I'm not sure about is the versioning policy. My > understanding is that minor versions are not compatible between each > other (i.e. 2.10 vs 2.12). How about the patch version? Is a > (hypothetical) simgear 2.10.1 compatible with flightgear 2.10.0? Or vice > versa? (FWIW, the former packager (Ove) took the pessimistic approach > and I didn't change that.). We very rarely do patch releases, but thanks to Jenkins is at least possible. Patch releases should be compatible I would hope, eg when I made the 2.10.1 patch of FG it still used SG 2.10.0 Minor versions are incompatible. > According to Debian's popularity contest, we're closer to 98.4% of the > participating systems being i386/amd64 (including the kfreebsd ones). > And given that the next best two, i.e. ARM (arm, armel, armhf, together > 0.8%) and PowerPC (0.5%) can hardly be considered gaming platforms, > we're reasonably close to 100%. > > However, I like diversity and given the successes on sparc and mipsel > give me hope of an easy fix... Personally I wouldn't spend your time, far more useful would be to get ARM working so we can run parts of the stack on Pis, Pandaboards and so on. This would be materially useful for various add-on functions, especially the canvas and fgcom. (I spend an increasing amount of my work time on OpenGL on ARM platforms, they have plenty of power to run graphics, depending on which GPU is on the SoC) Regards, James > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more! Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041391&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
