2012/11/22 Alberto Luaces <alua...@udc.es>:
>> I have tried with the other machine, and it built fine.  Diff attached
>> (I commited to VCS anyway).  Since release managers approved with
>> those changes enabled, I will go ahead later, but if you have the
>> opportunity confirm that it's OK in the meantime, please do.
>>
>
> Yes, it looks good!

Uploading, then.


>> I am not sure about the usefulness of the static libraries.  In OGRE I
>> had requests, but since upstream don't recommend it, it's easy for me
>> to dismiss the request :-)
>
> This time I'm the cuplrit.  There was a whislist bug that asked for it,
> and I did so.  Now I regret doing that, given the amount of
> computational power that it takes, specially for uncommon, embedded
> platforms, and given the low benefit of just having them.

Well, in principle it is sensible to attend demands, and I was tempted
several times to implement it in OGRE as well, copying your solution.

I didn't do it in OGRE for 3 reasons: [counter-]recommendation of
upstream, lazyness, and the power of hindsight after experiencing some
of the problems that we're having in OSG (more complexity in rules and
in general, resources in less powerful architectures, and the
invalidation of ccache --handy in largish packages, as this one--).

You didn't have the 3 excuses, certainly not the lazyness ;-)


> Thanks a lot for your help!

Thank you for all of the heavy lifting!


Cheers.
-- 
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>

_______________________________________________
Pkg-osg-devel mailing list
Pkg-osg-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-osg-devel

Reply via email to