Hi Robert, I for one would like to see packaging support inside the osg repository. FYI I tried to do debian packages the CMake way, but it seems that this is not yet ready. From the CMake mailing list, it even seem that debian people and CMake people disagree on the way it should be done.
>From what I understood, people are doing things in order to make OSG into ubuntu distributions : - Cesare Tirabassi (uploader), - Cyril Brulebois [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uploader) - Loïc Dachary [EMAIL PROTECTED] (maintainer) Informations were found from here https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openscenegraph/2.4.0-1.1 and from the diff file against the 2.4.0 release. Looking into this diff file it looks like there were also source code modified to meet the debian standards. Hopefully one of these three heroes is reading this mailing list and will pop in ! Otherwise I can propose help in making these debian control files into a submission for an inclusion into the osg repository. -- Mathieu 2008/11/26 Robert Osfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi Guys, > > We need more the two responses to pull together a coherent packing > strategy going forward. In particular I want feedback from potential > platform maintainers that are up for helping build binaries for each > platform. My ideal is for use to use the same granularity and naming > of packing for all platforms. > > One constraint already placed out there is fitting in with existing > packaging conventions. For instance if I check Kubuntu 8.10 I get > libopenscenegraph7 (OSG-2.4) and libopenscenegraph-dev, openscenegaph, > libosgal and libosgcal packages. > > Without installing these I can't see exactly what parts of the OSG > come along with it. > > I believe a good package layout would be in step with the major > dependencies that that bring with it. For instance the core OSG > package could just depend upon C++, OpenGL, GLU, X11/Win32/Carbon. > Without freetype and the image plugins it isn't that useful though > unless you have a very tightly focused vis-sim app. > > Next set of package(s) would be the main imagery ones like > tiff/gif/jpeg/png, or would these be rolled into the base package? > Further out still then you have GDAL, COLLADA. > > Then we have the specialist plugins that depend upon Inventor, > libxul/gecko, libVNCServ, Svgr/Cairo, Cairo/Popper, OpenVRML (and an > out of date version at that...). > > Further down the line I would like to see an osgAudio library > integrated into the core OSG, this may well directly depend upon > OpenGL, and as such would this make OpenAL a core dependency, or just > have it made as a none core dependency with a separate package for it. > > Orthogonal to these dependency based packages, I am think that the > osgIntrospection and osgWrappers are probably something that could be > its own package, as the osgWrappers are extremely large, larger than > the core libraries themselves, so placing them in a separate package > that only users that need them would pull in. > > My expectation is that we probably won't be able to roll out packages > for all the different possible major dependencies, and in these cases > users will just have to grab the OSG sources and download there own. > I don't have a problem with this - as long as we have base packages > that most users can grab and use in their applications I'm happy. We > might want to make it possible for users to match these extra modules > with the standard distributed packages that they plan to build upon, > although this might just be more awkward than it's worth... > > As I mentioned earlier I would like to get a scheme together for 2.8, > and get this rolled out soon, I would have like this month, but > someone seems to have stole all the days of November so we don't have > time left to make 2.8 this month, but we absolutely should get 2.8 out > the door before the Christmas break. I'd all like to get next years > round of linux distro's using 2.8 rather than out of date versions of > the OSG (Kubuntu 8.10 has OSG-2.4 which is stable release behind us). > > So please engage on this topic. Tell me what packages you'd like to > see. Also if you can help out making the packages, what elements to > the OSG could be done to make your life easier? > > 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
