Ooops! Sorry, it seems my mail client smoked something illegal and then mailed 3 times the same mail at the same time.
Sukender PVLE - Lightweight cross-platform game engine - http://pvle.sourceforge.net/ Le Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:27:34 +0100, Sukender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit: > Hi Robert, > > As a Windows user (and Linux too, but I definitively don't have enough time), > I'd like to tell that dependencies are somtimes a pain. I easily come to > trouble with versions confilcts (When using a lib in an app that already > exists in a OSG plugin, such as libcurl). > > And about deployement of binaries, I think some people should be *explicitly* > assigned to compilation/deployment of a specific binary set. My idea is that > a kind of chart should be maintained (maybe by you?) that indicates sets to > be compiled. These sets should indicate: > - platform > - compiler > - OSG version (Stable or developper release) > - dependencies versions > - and various options. > Each set would be assigned to one or more people (the first one that compiled > the set uploads it to the server). Does it sound right for you? > Of course, these sets are to be discussed... > > For me, the set I compile looks like: > - Win32 > - VC8 SP1 > - All stable OSG releases + some developper releases > - Dependencies found in > https://osgtoy.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/osgtoy/3rdParty/branches/3rdParty_win32binaries_vs80sp1 > - Libs: Freetype, giflib, jpeg, png, tiff, zlib. All OSG wrappers. All > plugins available with given dependencies. All exemples and applications. > Release and Debug configurations only. > (The resulting dir is >1GB, >100MB when 7Zip'ed) > > I'd like to help as much as I can for OSG 2.8, just tell me if you want some > things to be tested under Windows. > > Sukender > PVLE - Lightweight cross-platform game engine - http://pvle.sourceforge.net/ > > > Le Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:09:20 +0100, Robert Osfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a > écrit: > >> 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 >> osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org >> http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org > > _______________________________________________ > osg-users mailing list > osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
