Hi Robert, all, I have used the CPack program and module from the CMake suite with a small (but production) project at my company. It didn't use CPack to it's full extent nor did it ship for other platforms than win32. I believe that it might be a good and fairly unobtrusive way of defining packages in our current CMake scripts. Mathieu Marache have commented on the state of the DEB generator in previous post and that is certainly a drawback in the short term. An experienced debian package maintainer (which I am not but willing to try if noone steps up) could probably get a good start from the current DEB package generator in CPack though.
Is CPack an option at all? if so - should I whiip together an example of how this might be implemented based on the current osg source tree for you and developers to review? cheers Mattias On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Robert Osfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Cedric, > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Cedric Pinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think it's better if you read an example of an ebuild. Because source are >> compiled when installing package it's easy to setup the cmakelist option >> when installing the package. In the ebuild example we could add option like >> gdal, osgal, and what you want. > > Thanks for the ebuild example, this is exactly what I need to get on > an idea of the different needs of packing on different platforms. > > > > >> But i think it's not a good idea to create a new package format that could >> be common with all system. In my opinion the best way to setup package >> should be to have some vserver that automatically make package. Like a >> compiling farm. It sound big but could be made step by step. > > I'm not thinking about replacing existing packaging system, just > better supporting > the ones that are already there. > > In the case of windows there is rather a vacuum. How to solve this > one I can't answer. > >> But in fact we just need more maintainer, having those build system limit >> the amount of work by a human. Just need to check when new version. If we >> got >> more maintainers on differents distribution the package problem would not >> really exist. Maybe we need to find a comunity manager :) > > More maintainers isn't just what we require. We need coordinated > maintenaners, something that is rather lacking right now. It's a case > of who has the itch goes scratch it for as long as them have time and > interest. > > The maintainers also need to be working off the same general script, > and to getting required changes back up stream, engaging directly with > the OSG community. > >> I am not sure to understand the big picture you have about packaging so >> maybe i am wrong > > I don't have any strong idea of the ideal system for the OSG and it's > community, which is why I raised this thread. > > My plan is just - Set out a rough goal of wanting to improving the > packaging situation, gather information, and then tryto resolve some > workable plan going going. We're at the information gathering point > right now. > > Robert. > _______________________________________________ > osg-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org > _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
