A backport should not be needed for wheezy as it is testing, it should
just move in to testing, as you can see on the pts page (
http://packages.qa.debian.org/f/flightgear.html ) this hasn't happened
yet.
As for squeeze, openscenegraph would have to be backported first, so
its not something I plan to look at.
On 24 September 2011 18:35, Arnt Karlsen a...@c2i.net wrote:
Hi,
..is anyone backporting flightgear-2.4 for squeeze and wheezy?
http://www.flightgear.org/news/flightgear-v2-4-0-released/
http://packages.debian.org/search?suite=squeeze-backportssearchon=nameskeywords=flightgear
http://packages.debian.org/search?suite=sidsearchon=nameskeywords=flightgear
http://packages.debian.org/search?suite=wheezysearchon=nameskeywords=flightgear
http://packages.debian.org/search?suite=squeezesearchon=nameskeywords=flightgear
--
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
--
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
