Hi All, Development wise I'm working towards getting OpenSceneGraph-2.8 in the not too distant future. One aspect I'd like to improve on before this release is putting together better packing support for the various platforms that we have. For instance the OSG has/is/should continue distributed in binary form either a win32 binaries/OSX binaries, as well as the major linux distributions. I can't hope to have all the experitise, time and hardware/sofwtware resources to do this package building, but I would like to help facilate making it easier for others to do so, and for there to be greater continuity between the packaging composition/naming. So I'd start a discussion with those knowledge on each platform - what your needs are, and for OSG users themselves to help refine how it would make most sense for you.
One area that I'd like to resolve is the packaging granularity. The OSG is now packing more functionality than ever before, much of this like osgWidget and osgAnimation don't have an external dependencies, so can easily be placed in the base package, but not facilities like browser support, pdf support, vnc clients, as well as existing support for plugins like Collada are all items that while really useful to some, would be a rather weighty payload for others. I therefore believe it would be sensible for use to have a series of OpenSceneGraph packages, a base package, and a base package set of dependneices, then a series of add on packages that add extra features and with it their dependencies. Right now we have the OSG itself has an OpenSceneGraph/packaging/pkconfig directory, and this contains an openthreads.pc and openscenegraph.pc files. Looking at these files they don't lists all the OSG dependencies, and they obviously don't break it down like I'm advocating above. I'm also aware that on debain there are plenty of other configuration files associated with the debian packaging. What I feel would be appropriate would for us to centralise this, and make full use of the existing packing directory, full it out as required. I also feel the granularity needs to be addressed - but what sets of packaging and naming would be appropriate? Thanks in advance for you help/thoughts/wisdom, Robert. _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
