[Flightgear-devel] toow many bugs on flightgear sources
There is a lot of bugs in the structure of the project None of .cpp/.cxx files include all the files they needs, they includes files which includes other files that this .cpp/.cxx depends on. Then if you modify the first include and the consequence is the first include does nt include the other files needed by the .cpp/.cxx then this .cpp/.cxx doesnt compile and its become to be very expensive to detect which include is missing. In collaborative project its really a problem ! The hierarchy of directory is not good enought, The includes directives are bugged: the files includes with absolute reference path and not relative than we have to guess what include directories to set on the path search: A project doesnt have to set include path for all the subproject: you must use relative path on the source code. The interdepencies are chaotics In first attemp to compil i took 3 days to resolve dependencies. Today, after succesfully compile flightgear since a week, I have got the new jsbsim sources and tried to include it on the Flightgear: then i got a lot of dependencies errors (includes, namespace disapeared ect ...) Before to continue to develop the project, structure and hierarchies must be cleaned !! David Ingels -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] toow many bugs on flightgear sources
Hi David, This post will probably not be taken well by many subscribers but I understand your frustration. The build process works but to get the first clean compile is a highly non-trivial task as you noticed. Your post is not very descriptive so I can only give you general pointers. You need to build the different dependencies in proper order using the build tools provided in the different packages (cmake and autotools). You are best of installing the different modules (make install) and use the install location in subsequent build steps. Create a build script that automates the compilation of all packages, run it regularly. Usually you need to use the latest synchronized CVS versions of simgear and flightgear (assuming you are using repository version, replace with git if that is were you fetch the sources). I haven't had time to build flightgear et al. since two months back so cannot say if my set up compiles cleanly today. I expect that it needs some tweaking ... as always. Which isn't a bad thing and should be expected since using the repository stuff is to live on the edge. Cheers, Jari On 5/5/10 12:10 PM, Ingels David wrote: There is a lot of bugs in the structure of the project None of .cpp/.cxx files include all the files they needs, they includes files which includes other files that this .cpp/.cxx depends on. Then if you modify the first include and the consequence is the first include does nt include the other files needed by the .cpp/.cxx then this .cpp/.cxx doesnt compile and its become to be very expensive to detect which include is missing. In collaborative project its really a problem ! The hierarchy of directory is not good enought, The includes directives are bugged: the files includes with absolute reference path and not relative than we have to guess what include directories to set on the path search: A project doesnt have to set include path for all the subproject: you must use relative path on the source code. The interdepencies are chaotics In first attemp to compil i took 3 days to resolve dependencies. Today, after succesfully compile flightgear since a week, I have got the new jsbsim sources and tried to include it on the Flightgear: then i got a lot of dependencies errors (includes, namespace disapeared ect ...) Before to continue to develop the project, structure and hierarchies must be cleaned !! David Ingels -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] toow many bugs on flightgear sources
Ingels David wrote: The interdepencies are chaotics [ ] I've tried to understand the build instructions / FAQ Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] toow many bugs on flightgear sources
Hi David, This post will probably not be taken well by many subscribers but I understand your frustration. The build process works but to get the first clean compile is a highly non-trivial task as you noticed. Your post is not very descriptive so I can only give you general pointers. ... Cheers, Jari I'd have to agree with all this. I stopped trying to build FlightGear years ago because it is highly non-trivial. Having been involved in several large engineering and training simulations over the years, I can say that in my experience it's almost always non-trivial. :-) But, I think that if some effort was expended, that process could be improved and made simpler or more automated for FlightGear. I'd like to see the build process formalized for building under: 1) Linux 2) Cygwin 3) MSVC++ (using the latest Express compiler freely downloadable) 4) Mac There ought to be some kind of install wizard for the source code, and an interdependency checker, or similar. Jon -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] toow many bugs on flightgear sources
As another note, it seems that simgear and terragear from CVS have some problems -- using simgear-cs and terragear-cs from git seems to work better. Not sure what the -cs means or why we have two different repositories in the first place. Jim On 5 May 2010 06:33, Jon S. Berndt jonsber...@comcast.net wrote: Hi David, This post will probably not be taken well by many subscribers but I understand your frustration. The build process works but to get the first clean compile is a highly non-trivial task as you noticed. Your post is not very descriptive so I can only give you general pointers. ... Cheers, Jari I'd have to agree with all this. I stopped trying to build FlightGear years ago because it is highly non-trivial. Having been involved in several large engineering and training simulations over the years, I can say that in my experience it's almost always non-trivial. :-) But, I think that if some effort was expended, that process could be improved and made simpler or more automated for FlightGear. I'd like to see the build process formalized for building under: 1) Linux 2) Cygwin 3) MSVC++ (using the latest Express compiler freely downloadable) 4) Mac There ought to be some kind of install wizard for the source code, and an interdependency checker, or similar. Jon -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] toow many bugs on flightgear sources
On 5 May 2010, at 12:33, Jon S. Berndt wrote: I'd have to agree with all this. I stopped trying to build FlightGear years ago because it is highly non-trivial. Having been involved in several large engineering and training simulations over the years, I can say that in my experience it's almost always non-trivial. :-) But, I think that if some effort was expended, that process could be improved and made simpler or more automated for FlightGear. To be honest, I'm not sure much simplification is possible - FG *is* a large, complex piece of code, and it doesn't live inside a build ecosystem like Gnome or KDE, so if we don't want to pull every dependency into the sources, there will always be some initial steps. It's more awkward to get building than a Linux kernel, but no worse than (say) Blender or Firefox. On Linux, the steps are (from a clean Ubuntu/Fedora install) - install various -dev packages using apt-get/yum/synaptic (openAL-dev, compiler, freetype-dev, libpng-dev, boost, cmake, cvs/svn/git clients etc) - download OSG, cmake, make and make install - download PLIB tarball, configure, make and make install - download Simgear, configure,make, make install - download FlightGear, configure, make, make install (I've done this recently to validate my Hudson build system for FG) Not trivial, but not exactly the end of the world, either. The situation on Cygwin is not as good, but the same fundamentals apply - just more work has to be done to get FreeType, boost, cmake and so on into place. In each case I don't believe *any* unusual configure arguments are required, except maybe --prefix and --with-osg/--with-simgear; The autoconf script is pretty smart these days, though I wouldn't claim it's perfect :) On Mac and Visual Studio, there's certainly more messing around, but if anyone asks here they will be helped out; probably some better Wiki documentation would help. And, as always, documenting and making beautiful build systems is less fun that hacking code - and most of us *are* doing this for fun :) Regards, James -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] toow many bugs on flightgear sources
Jim Duchek wrote: As another note, it seems that simgear and terragear from CVS have some problems -- using simgear-cs and terragear-cs from git seems to work better. Not sure what the -cs means or why we have two different repositories in the first place. -cs is the short form for Custom Scenery - see this site for a little background: http://www.custom-scenery.org/ terragear-cs is a fork of the 'traditional' TerraGear/CVS stuff after maintenance of the latter had stalled. simgear-cs is a derivate of SimGear/CVS to allow headless operation (without a $DISPLAY), Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] toow many bugs on flightgear sources
Hi David, your rant could have more weight if you included some examples. Please be more specific to help us improve the current situation. -Fred - Ingels David david.ing...@laposte.net a écrit : There is a lot of bugs in the structure of the project -- Frédéric Bouvier http://my.fotolia.com/frfoto/ Photo gallery - album photo http://www.youtube.com/user/fgfred64 Videos -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
