There is a fault somewhere in Flightgear/Simgear cmake which makes this
happen from time to time.
Here is a quick fix.
Step 12a
If you get the error
Could NOT find SimGear (missing: SIMGEAR_VERSION_OK) (Required is at least
version 2.5.0)
Press Add Entry
In the window that comes up set Name
As for the topic brought up here, I sense a bit of sentimentalism
clouding the technical judgment of some.
(...)
In a positive creative development structure you leave the contributors
their freedom.
Contribute your planes! rather than Come to Gitorious, ask for our
permission to get your
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 04:21:47PM -0600, dave perry wrote:
On 10/18/2011 10:24 AM, Cedric Sodhi wrote:
- Development -
All aircraft related development shall henceforth be performed on
repositories which are maintained by the respective authors.
It is planned that most of the
On 18 Oct 2011, at 23:21, dave perry wrote:
2. Assuming the answers are no, yes, to #1, will all these repositories
be centrally located so one can track new or modified ac of interest?
3. Is there any interest in creating repositories by ac class/type?
e.g. historical,
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:28:33AM +0300, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
As for the topic brought up here, I sense a bit of sentimentalism
clouding the technical judgment of some.
(...)
In a positive creative development structure you leave the contributors
their freedom.
Contribute
Hello again,
I would like to add that I agree, that making any implication about
whether authors *should* migrate their planes to their own repos, was
wrong. There is of course no reason to turn them away, if only, there is
a reason to request them to be part of the central Gitorious-Account (as
On 10/19/2011 10:36 AM, James Turner wrote:
On 18 Oct 2011, at 23:21, dave perry wrote:
2. Assuming the answers are no, yes, to #1, will all these repositories
be centrally located so one can track new or modified ac of interest?
3. Is there any interest in creating repositories by ac
I'd loke to note that I listed pros and cons at the wiki. Some people
contributed, some didn't.
Rather than turning this into a me/we-vs-you/they fight I'd like to see that
people sit down
and add their thoughts (and facts) to the wiki. Makes it easier/healthier for
all of us ;)
This is exactly the deal which I think you are rather hurting yourself
with. I allege, that contributers of planes are not looking to make a
deal with you, at least I would not.
First, you're talking to the wrong person. I'm not Thorsten B, I am
Thorsten R, and I do not represent the core
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Cedric Sodhi wrote:
other developers may take care of your work when you're not around,
others will feel responsible to provide support if they can,...).
I think we have sufficiently seen how other people's work is taken care
of after they leave. And how much
On 19 Oct 2011, at 10:15, Edheldil wrote:
Is there any written spec on this system? I got frustrated when looking
for a specific aircraft in fgrun :) and so I suggested something similar
several days ago on IRC, but it got confused with a/c rating.
If I understand you correctly, submit a/c
Just to add my own 2 cents while the central repository is a fine
idea , after the move to git , I lost any commit rights to my own
work, so after a time i gave up on the idea of maintaining them and
started my own repositories . I would have happily continued to
maintain/upgrade them , and
On 19 Oct 2011, at 11:53, syd adams wrote:
while the central repository is a fine
idea , after the move to git , I lost any commit rights to my own
work, so after a time i gave up on the idea of maintaining them and
started my own repositories . I would have happily continued to
I would have happily continued to
maintain/upgrade them , and I,m hoping this change might make things
easier ... but if Im now being told that my work can be changed
without any notice to me , that i have no say over my own
contributions, then I wont waste any more time here.
I think that
On 19 Oct 2011, at 12:27, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
Most of us are adult people, and most of the time we are able to act like
civilized people, i.e. we can work out things in a reasonable way without
invoking the law and waving license around. There are some rules for
emergency cases
Im still not sleeping , so thanks for clearing things up. I for one
like the aircraft split , just awaiting the require permissions.Will
be nice to get my own work up to date without risking breaking
something elsewhere in fgdata .
Cheers
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:42 AM, James Turner
I missed a day being offline yesterday, and now I see there's no way I'm
going to be able to read every message in this thread word for word and
catch (and acknowledge) every nuance of every point being made. So let me
just say what I'm thinking, which probably echos the sentiments of the other
Pulled c172p, senecaii, f16, citationx, citation-bravo.
c172p, f16 and citationx work fine.
senecaii and citation-bravo show random splash screens
during initialization and start with no cockpit or external view model
to be seen.
Symlinking the directories into $FG_ROOT/fgdata(NEW)/Aircraft makes
On 19 October 2011 19:29, Cedric Sodhi man...@gmx.net wrote:
https://gitorious.org/flightgear-aircraft
Last night, the discussion came up where the above page is slow to
load, in part it's due to 1.2MB of HTML code, plus the CSS, plus the
any images in use. Not very browser friendly. I hacked
Question on the new repository layout:
I would like to pull every aircraft from
https://gitorious.org/flightgear-aircraft/
Is there a way to do this in a single command or do I have to manually
identify each aircraft in the repository and manually clone it here? If
someone adds a new aircraft
Not automatically, as far as I know, but it should be relatively simple to
script this. the main issue is how to script something that will work across
platforms. I can do this in less than 20 lines of python, but of course not
everyone has python installed on his windows machine
Ciao,
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:14 AM, TDO_Brandano -
tdo_brand...@hotmail.comwrote:
Not automatically, as far as I know, but it should be relatively simple to
script this. the main issue is how to script something that will work across
platforms. I can do this in less than 20 lines of python, but
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Curtis Olson wrote:
Sure we can script it out, but do I have 2-3 days right now to fiddle with a
script? Not this week myself.
Updating aircraft repositories you have cloned should be easy enough,
a quick and dirty bash hack:
for d in my-aircraft-dir/*; do (cd $d; git
On 19 Oct 2011, at 16:27, Curtis Olson wrote:
Right now we've replaced a one-line command with several weeks of manual
work. (Or so it appears.) I understand the reasons, and we need to move
forward, but I think this is a logic gap here -- an unforeseen side effect,
and a problem we
The greatest problem i can see is that there's no wget equivalent for Windows,
or tools to parse strings from a file, inbuilt in the shell. That's why I was
mentioning python: it's easier to get working on Windows and these tools are
part of the standard library. On linux, of course, you can
Curtis Olson wrote:
Anyone have any good ideas?
Yes, revert the dissection of 'fgdata' until a practical solution is in
place which doesn't require lots of people to waste extra time just to
achieve the previous state which simply works for them.
Spending some thoughts on how to compensate the
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:48 AM, James Turner wrote:
The intention is create a super-module which has each aircraft as a
submodule. Eg an 'all-aircraft' repository, for people who want this.
Ideally someone with some scripting skills would automate creating that
repository, and then we're
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Curtis Olson wrote:
Hi James,
A super module sounds ideal if that's doable in git. Looking forward to
it! For now, maybe I have to sluff along with the aircraft from the old
fgdata repository.
Replying to myself:
Once we have a super-module for all the
Normally windows users want everything in a 1 click download like
precompiled packages. Maybe we can do this serverside, let them check a box
for each aircraft or select all and simply give them a link?
Jorg
2011/10/19 TDO_Brandano - tdo_brand...@hotmail.com
The greatest problem i can see is
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Martin Spott wrote:
Curtis Olson wrote:
Anyone have any good ideas?
Yes, revert the dissection of 'fgdata' until a practical solution is in
place which doesn't require lots of people to waste extra time just to
achieve the previous state which simply
We have to make a small distinction here. Are we talking about users or
developers? As it was pointed out earlier, GIT should not be seen as a
distribution mechanism, this is a task best left elsewhere, and possibly
managed by the frontend. It should not be difficult to just archive all the
Cedric Sodhi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:28:33AM +0300, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
You seem to entertain the idea of a free lunch - get the goodies which
being part of the Flightgear project has to offer, but keeping the freedom
to do what you want. That may be a positive creative
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Curtis Olson wrote:
A super module sounds ideal if that's doable in git. Looking forward to
it! For now, maybe I have to sluff along with the aircraft from the old
fgdata repository.
Hi James,
One more super module question: if I start plowing through 350
On 19 Oct 2011, at 17:47, Curtis Olson wrote:
One more super module question: if I start plowing through 350 aircraft by
hand, and then next week you come out with a super module, will that require
me to redownload everything, or can that be retrofitted on top of the modules
I've already
Curtis Olson wrote:
A super module sounds ideal if that's doable in git. Looking forward to it!
Gitorious will be pleased if everybody starts pulling everything from
scratch - and developers will be pleased by Gitorious' performance when
everybody starts pulling everything from scratch.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Martin Spott wrote:
A super module sounds ideal if that's doable in git. Looking forward to
it!
Gitorious will be pleased if everybody starts pulling everything from
scratch - and developers will be pleased by Gitorious' performance when
everybody starts
Important message for anyone that uses Git:
DO NOT CLONE FGDATA-NEW for the moment.
That repository was meant for testing-purpose only. In fact we found out that
there were
still aircraft-commits in there and Jorg is currently pushing a new (testing!)
repository.
The old fgdata is still up
I actually lost track of who is doing what in the splitting of fgdata
but there is a tremendous response pointing out issues related to the
split. I want to express support for the splitting team.
I support the split if only for the reason that aircraft maintainers
will get commit rights to
Martin says :
Yes, revert the dissection of 'fgdata' until a practical solution is in
place which doesn't require lots of people to waste extra time just to
achieve the previous state which simply works for them.
Yes ! I agree.
Place all the planes in a second deposit, why not. But hundreds
Seems like most people are just banging their heads against the wall
trying to make a new system the same as the old, which is counter
productive and unfortunate. It is highly unlikely ANYONE needs every
single aircraft from git that they were previously forced to take,
which is the whole point of
My main point (or thought) is just that if we are going to push forward with
this split, then we need to go the whole way and make it work reasonably for
everyone. The people pushing this and doing the initial work, can't just
take it half way and then leave it because their personal concerns are
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Jacob Burbach jmburb...@gmail.com wrote:
Seems like most people are just banging their heads against the wall
trying to make a new system the same as the old, which is counter
productive and unfortunate. It is highly unlikely ANYONE needs every
single aircraft
Am 19.10.2011 20:45, schrieb Jacob Burbach:
Seems like most people are just banging their heads against the wall
trying to make a new system the same as the old, which is counter
productive and unfortunate. It is highly unlikely ANYONE needs every
single aircraft from git that they were
Jacob Burbach wrote:
Seems like most people are just banging their heads against the wall
trying to make a new system the same as the old, which is counter
productive and unfortunate.
I wonder by which justification you pretend to speak for a group whose
common understanding you never
On 2011-10-19 21.12, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
Another example: For the last release, we branched and tagged the
repositories and well defined states. This was OK for three repositories
(fg+sg+fgdata). Doing this manually for 300+ repos is a no and doing
this scripted calls for trouble.
But is
Curtis Olson wrote:
We are committed to git, I'm not suggesting otherwise, but the entire binary
history of the data tree is pushing 10Gb.
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same item, but the bare
repository of the entire 'fgdata' in its current state should be at
approx. 4 GByte or even
Hello everybody,
I apologize if my initial mail did not describe it clearly enough. I
hope this mail helps with all of your questions:
Before you go on a disclaimer ahead: There has been a minor (not just in
a manner of speaking) complication with the new FGDATA repository, so
there is now a
I understand there are a some cases where one might need all aircraft
to perform some specific task, and when I said unlikely ANYONE would
I could have spoken better. However for the vast majority of
developers, contributors, and testers, I have to believe it is
completely unnecessary or desired
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.net wrote:
Jacob Burbach wrote:
Seems like most people are just banging their heads against the wall
trying to make a new system the same as the old, which is counter
productive and unfortunate.
I wonder by which justification
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 04:55:28PM -0400, Jacob Burbach wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.net wrote:
Jacob Burbach wrote:
Seems like most people are just banging their heads against the wall
trying to make a new system the same as the old, which is
Hi FlightGear,
there was little input on the fgdata split and few people speaking up
when things were started. We do see a lot of responses now - many being
in favor of the change, but also concerns about remaining issues.
Indeed, setting up the new repo isn't as simple as it seemed initially,
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:10:29 +0200
ThorstenB bre...@gmail.com wrote:
We are really sorry for any inconvenience and misunderstandings this
further change may cause. But now, as we have everybody's attention on
the subject, we're looking forward to many people testing the proposed
changes.
52 matches
Mail list logo
