On 09/09/2013 07:29 AM, James Turner wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2013, at 17:34, Markus Wanner <mar...@bluegap.ch> wrote:
>> 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)

I think some of the more recent patches didn't flow upstream, yet. I'm
focusing on getting it working properly on Debian, first. And getting
2.12 in. Just a matter of time. Sorry for the lag.

> Or you can simply email diffs here / to me, but either way the patches can be 
> applied.

Will eventually do. If Clement want to help and picks them up before,
even better.

> This is a bug in our code.

Good to hear.

> 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.  

Usual practice is that whatever a single file's copyright line states
overrides any kind of project-wide license file or agreement. Thus, I
recommend asking the authors if they agree to change the license.

However, I'm fine however you do it, as long as we're safe from complaints.

Clement, can you provide a patch, provided the debian/copyright info?

> 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

Thanks, very useful information. Should allow us to strip the patch
version from the package name. I.e. libsimgearcore2.10.0 vs

> Minor versions are incompatible. 


> Personally I wouldn't spend your time, far more useful would be to get ARM 
> working

Well, ARM is one that fails. I'll eventually give my armel box a try
(i.e. ARM in little endian mode).

> 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)

Oh, I didn't think about these, yes. So, can I run flightgear on my RPi?
Under what OS are you working on the Pi?



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments:
1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT
2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT
3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks
Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to