James, 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 libsimgearcore2.10 > Minor versions are incompatible. Roger. > 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? Regards Markus
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 http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=51271111&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
