Re: [Flightgear-devel] Proposal for 1.0
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 09:21:33 + (UTC) Martin Spott wrote: Hello, this is now going to be the third release in a row that relies on PLIB CVS, I find this is a bit unsatisfactory. On the other side people are waiting endlessly to get patches incorporated into PLIB. I herewith propose to put a copy of PLIB into the SimGear tree after the release is out, to rip those pieces off that FlightGear doesn't use (think of the audio stuff) and to maintain the rest inside Simgear. The few patches that the current PLIB CVS tree actually sees should be easily tracked and incorporated into Simgear/PLIB if required. Wow, I've been so out of the loop up to a month and a half ago that had no idea the releases were being built on PLIB CVS. But yesterday I came across a post I made in late February asking whether Tiago Gusmão's texture compression stuff had made it into plib or not, and his replying that after over a month he was still having trouble getting folks on the plib development list to reply. How much extra work would this mean *after* putting it into SimGear? Does plib have a high patch submission rate, thus requiring that someone would have to duplicate the efforts of whoever evaluates and commits patches for plib? -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Proposal for 1.0
On Thursday 06 April 2006 10:21, Martin Spott wrote: this is now going to be the third release in a row that relies on PLIB CVS, I find this is a bit unsatisfactory. I've been building CVS with plib-1.8.4 (the last release) for ages with no particular problems, so I'm not sure it's true to say that we _rely_ on PLIB CVS. This is not to detract completely from your point though... On the other side people are waiting endlessly to get patches incorporated into PLIB. That seems to be true. I'm personally using Tiago's texture compression patch with 1.8.4 and it is the sort of thing that would have been applied almost immediately were it part of simgear, say. We should also bear in mind the possibility that PLIB might not be the most suitable platform for fgfs in the future and that migration to OSG would be an option. However, I'm not a coder and other than having played about with some fairly inspiring (visually) OSG applications, I have no really valid opinion on that matter; that would almost certainly be post-1.0 anyway I would imagine? Cheers, AJ --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=110944bid=241720dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Proposal for 1.0
AJ MacLeod On Thursday 06 April 2006 10:21, Martin Spott wrote: this is now going to be the third release in a row that relies on PLIB CVS, I find this is a bit unsatisfactory. I've been building CVS with plib-1.8.4 (the last release) for ages with no particular problems, so I'm not sure it's true to say that we _rely_ on PLIB CVS. This is not to detract completely from your point though... On the other side people are waiting endlessly to get patches incorporated into PLIB. That seems to be true. I'm personally using Tiago's texture compression patch with 1.8.4 and it is the sort of thing that would have been applied almost immediately were it part of simgear, say. We should also bear in mind the possibility that PLIB might not be the most suitable platform for fgfs in the future and that migration to OSG would be an option. However, I'm not a coder and other than having played about with some fairly inspiring (visually) OSG applications, I have no really valid opinion on that matter; that would almost certainly be post-1.0 anyway I would imagine? I think that this provides a sensible migration route to OSG, if that is the way we are going, otherwise it seems a good proposal in its own right. Apart from the number of updates required (small) I can't see a downside. Vivian --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid0944bid$1720dat1642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Proposal for 1.0
Curtis L. Olson wrote: Huh!?! I've been building with plib-v1.8.4 happily without any problems. Officially we depend on v1.8.4. If there's something in plib-cvs that we could benefit from, then we should encourage those guys to do another release. Several patches and improvements went in since the last release of PLIB happened and nobody managed to convince Steve to do a new release over the last year. You probably don't notice the problems with 1.8.4 because you run Linux, people using other platforms run into difficulties with 1.8.4. On the other hand there are small but known bugs in the build system of PLIB CVS and nobody cares over months Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=110944bid=241720dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Proposal for 1.0
On Thursday 06 April 2006 15:07, Vivian Meazza wrote: I think that this provides a sensible migration route to OSG, if that is the way we are going, otherwise it seems a good proposal in its own right. Apart True, I have most of that parts of ssg that are required by flightgear simgear reimplemented using osg nodes below. That is not yet ready for use, but that might be a useful way to go. Greetings Mathias -- Mathias Fröhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid0944bid$1720dat1642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
