Hi Mattias, I've just been playing with build the various packages and a couple of potential usage look like they might loom up.
First up is that when because we have separate packages then all unpack into separate directories, which would force end users to manually install the files from each individual package to be able to use them. One could just unpack packages in one directory and then set env vars to pick them up. Second issue is that libopenscenegraph contains just plugins, and only really makes sense being called openscenegraph if it's actually contains enough of the openscenegraph to be functional. This isn't an issue that you've introduced, rather it's a manifestation of my thought that having a pure openscenegraph-core was a good idea. I think perhaps we should just make the standard plugins including the ones with external dependencies like freetype, tiff, jpeg etc. as dependencies, and package it all under libopenscenegraph and libopenscenegraph-dev. Merging libopenscenegraph-core and libopenscenegraph would meant that the standard openscenegraph package has more external dependencies that is absolutely necessary for a minimal OSG install, but perhaps that just fine - if users really do need to be that constrained with their dependencies they can always roll their own binaries. Could you go ahead and merge libopensenegraph-core into libopenscenegraph? A final thought is that about packaging and management of dependencies. debian packaging has this built in, so if I grab libopenscenegraph-dev I get libopenscengraph automatically. Is there anything in cpack that goes to address this side of things? Robert. _______________________________________________ osg-submissions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org
