Re: [Flightgear-devel] Building multiple fgfs binaries from one source tree

2007-07-24 Thread Tim Moore
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: > I need to revise > > Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: > >> However, src/GUI/libGUI.a is linked against plib - and plib choses at >> compile time which backend it will use. FG CVS does that via AC_DEFINEs >> in configure.a

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Building multiple fgfs binaries from one source tree

2007-07-24 Thread Hans Ulrich Niedermann
I need to revise Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: > However, src/GUI/libGUI.a is linked against plib - and plib choses at > compile time which backend it will use. FG CVS does that via AC_DEFINEs > in configure.ac (PU_USE_GLUT, PU_USE_SDL, PU_USE_NATIVE), i.e. via > #defines in config.h. > > For com

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Building multiple fgfs binaries from one source tree

2007-07-24 Thread Hans Ulrich Niedermann
Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: > My proposal is NOT to switch FG to use libtool. > > My proposal is to allow building statically linked executables as FG is > doing not, but build up three different executables in the same one > build tree. Uhm, that did not quite come out right. Corrected versio

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Building multiple fgfs binaries from one source tree

2007-07-24 Thread Harald JOHNSEN
Stefan Seifert wrote: >AnMaster wrote: > > >>We shouldn't: fg/SDL breaks on Swedish keyboards at least. For example "]" is >>on AltGr-9, that works with both GLUT and FreeGLUT but not with SDL. >> >> > >Interesting: I've been using fg/SDL for at least a year now and am using >a German keyboa

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Building multiple fgfs binaries from one source tree

2007-07-24 Thread Stefan Seifert
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 AnMaster wrote: > Melchior FRANZ wrote: >> [...] In the PLIB branch >> we should rather make SDL default, as freeglut is notoriously broken >> ( keys; reportedly slower FPS(?)). And in the OSG branch [...] > > We shouldn't: fg/SDL breaks on Swedish ke

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Building multiple fgfs binaries from one source tree

2007-07-24 Thread Hans Ulrich Niedermann
Curtis Olson wrote: > I have no problem with people using libtool for genuine shared library > packages; it can make a lot of sense there. But for FlightGear/SimGear we > found that it ended up causing more headaches than it cured. My proposal is NOT to switch FG to use libtool. My proposal is

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Building multiple fgfs binaries from one source tree

2007-07-24 Thread Hans Ulrich Niedermann
Melchior FRANZ wrote: > * Hans Fugal -- Tuesday 24 July 2007: >> He didn't have an argument. He had a solution > > Yeah, but what annoys me is that it's a solution that is in fact about > turning fgfs into shared libs, but disguised as a solution for (allegedly) > "responsible" developers. I do

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Building multiple fgfs binaries from one source tree

2007-07-24 Thread Hans Ulrich Niedermann
Melchior FRANZ wrote: > If your argument would have been that we want shared libs (which we > clearly didn't want in the past), then there'd be something to discuss. I know that shared libs are not wanted here, so I was not going to propose them. > But if it's only about developers wasting less

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Building multiple fgfs binaries from one source tree

2007-07-24 Thread Curtis Olson
On 7/24/07, Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... it's a solution that is in fact about turning fgfs into shared libs ... For whatever it's worth, we went down the "libtool" path for a while in FlightGear and decided at the time that the headaches a weirdness of libtool simply wasn't

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Building multiple fgfs binaries from one source tree

2007-07-24 Thread Hans Fugal
On 7/24/07, Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Hans Fugal -- Tuesday 24 July 2007: > > He didn't have an argument. He had a solution > > Yeah, but what annoys me is that it's a solution that is in fact about > turning fgfs into shared libs, but disguised as a solution for (allegedly) > "

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Building multiple fgfs binaries from one source tree

2007-07-24 Thread Melchior FRANZ
* Hans Fugal -- Tuesday 24 July 2007: > He didn't have an argument. He had a solution Yeah, but what annoys me is that it's a solution that is in fact about turning fgfs into shared libs, but disguised as a solution for (allegedly) "responsible" developers. The former is a rather big change, the

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Building multiple fgfs binaries from one source tree

2007-07-24 Thread Hans Fugal
On 7/24/07, Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Hans Ulrich Niedermann -- Sunday 22 July 2007: > > As the whole thing is still in development, it makes sense for > > developers to have more than just one of the three, so that one can > > compare their behaviours. > > And how many develope

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Building multiple fgfs binaries from one source tree

2007-07-24 Thread Melchior FRANZ
* AnMaster -- Tuesday 24 July 2007: > Melchior FRANZ wrote: > > [...] In the PLIB branch > > we should rather make SDL default, as freeglut is notoriously broken > > ( keys; reportedly slower FPS(?)). And in the OSG branch [...] > > We shouldn't: fg/SDL breaks on Swedish keyboards at least. You p

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Building multiple fgfs binaries from one source tree

2007-07-24 Thread AnMaster
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Melchior FRANZ wrote: > [...] In the PLIB branch > we should rather make SDL default, as freeglut is notoriously broken > ( keys; reportedly slower FPS(?)). And in the OSG branch [...] We shouldn't: fg/SDL breaks on Swedish keyboards at least. For e

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Building multiple fgfs binaries from one source tree

2007-07-24 Thread Melchior FRANZ
* Hans Ulrich Niedermann -- Sunday 22 July 2007: > As the whole thing is still in development, it makes sense for > developers to have more than just one of the three, so that one can > compare their behaviours. And how many developers actually do it? My guess: one. That would be you. But you have