Re: [Flightgear-devel] portability of simgear
On 11 Sep 2013, at 10:16, Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch wrote: I think some of the more recent patches didn't flow upstream, yet. I'm focusing on getting it working properly on Debian, first. And getting 2.12 in. Just a matter of time. Sorry for the lag. Okay, but if any of them are portable fixes, it would be better to get them in 2.12 itself. Usual practice is that whatever a single file's copyright line states overrides any kind of project-wide license file or agreement. Thus, I recommend asking the authors if they agree to change the license. However, I'm fine however you do it, as long as we're safe from complaints. Given the history of the files, I believe we are safe. There are a few files which I have included which need to remain with their very explicit license (MD5 calculation, expat), but definitely several which have been moved from FG and not updated. There's also a large collection from David Megginson which he placed in the public domain originally, I will ping him and ask his opinion. so we can run parts of the stack on Pis, Pandaboards and so on. This would be materially useful for various add-on functions, especially the canvas and fgcom. (I spend an increasing amount of my work time on OpenGL on ARM platforms, they have plenty of power to run graphics, depending on which GPU is on the SoC) Oh, I didn't think about these, yes. So, can I run flightgear on my RPi? Under what OS are you working on the Pi? I'm currently busy on other areas but it will be either Raspbian or a custom buildroot Linux deployment. Although, since my current buildroot uses ulibc, that would mean discovering all the places in SG+FG where we've assumed glibc. Note we can't run FG itself without major work, since these platforms only support GLES1 or GLES2, and there's many legacy areas of the renderer which would not work. (BTW I believe OSG compiles out of the box on ARM targets now, Android at least, but I didn't try it myself yet) Regards, James -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] portability of simgear
James, On 09/09/2013 07:29 AM, James Turner wrote: On 8 Sep 2013, at 17:34, Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch wrote: There are a few areas where I could need help or need to feed patches back. You could take a look at the patches currently applied to 2.10. I was under the impression all patches had been up streamed - the correct process here is to file merge requests and email here (since unfortunately Gitorious merge requests don't notify people) I think some of the more recent patches didn't flow upstream, yet. I'm focusing on getting it working properly on Debian, first. And getting 2.12 in. Just a matter of time. Sorry for the lag. Or you can simply email diffs here / to me, but either way the patches can be applied. Will eventually do. If Clement want to help and picks them up before, even better. This is a bug in our code. Good to hear. We have files with missing licenses, files which were moved between FG and SG, and files which were contributed public domain. However 'the license' for SimGear is LGPL and for FlightGear, GPL version 2 (or later at discretion, but we don't require version 3). Patches to clean up the situation are welcome. Given the license file and docs have always been clear which license each project is under, I think it is safe to consider file-level discrepancies as bugs and standardise. Usual practice is that whatever a single file's copyright line states overrides any kind of project-wide license file or agreement. Thus, I recommend asking the authors if they agree to change the license. However, I'm fine however you do it, as long as we're safe from complaints. Clement, can you provide a patch, provided the debian/copyright info? We very rarely do patch releases, but thanks to Jenkins is at least possible. Patch releases should be compatible I would hope, eg when I made the 2.10.1 patch of FG it still used SG 2.10.0 Thanks, very useful information. Should allow us to strip the patch version from the package name. I.e. libsimgearcore2.10.0 vs libsimgearcore2.10 Minor versions are incompatible. Roger. Personally I wouldn't spend your time, far more useful would be to get ARM working Well, ARM is one that fails. I'll eventually give my armel box a try (i.e. ARM in little endian mode). so we can run parts of the stack on Pis, Pandaboards and so on. This would be materially useful for various add-on functions, especially the canvas and fgcom. (I spend an increasing amount of my work time on OpenGL on ARM platforms, they have plenty of power to run graphics, depending on which GPU is on the SoC) Oh, I didn't think about these, yes. So, can I run flightgear on my RPi? Under what OS are you working on the Pi? Regards Markus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] portability of simgear
On 09/11/2013 10:54 PM, Clement de l'Hamaide wrote: Unfortunately here is a delicate case, some license are GPL simply because the source code has moved from FG to SG and author didn't updated the license. Well, it's up to the project to decide whether or not a push for re-licensing makes sense. Claiming simgear is available under the terms of the LGPL is pretty certainly incorrect, though. Some MIT or Expat license are used but we can't change the license with our own decision. For now we would admit SG is a multiple licenses project. AFAIK these are compatible to (L)GPL, so you could still state that simgear is available under the terms of the (L)GPL for the entire project. Since neither the MIT nor the Expat licens add restrictions beyond those of the LGPL. Mind you, though, IANAL. Regards Markus Wanner -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] portability of simgear
Hi, License issue: Unfortunately here is a delicate case, some license are GPL simply because the source code has moved from FG to SG and author didn't updated the license. Some MIT or Expat license are used but we can't change the license with our own decision. For now we would admit SG is a multiple licenses project. Patches: I'm not qualified to apply these patches because I'm not involved in this part but someone can certainly take a look at them: - http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/simgear.git;a=blob;f=debian/patches/CVE-2012-2090.diff;h=cfa42d32745f1ce7c652134e1a71d1c1cc5060df;hb=HEAD - http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/simgear.git;a=blob;f=debian/patches/CVE-2012-2091.diff;h=11a24cda80586757a426022762770399052204a3;hb=HEAD - http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/simgear.git;a=blob;f=debian/patches/gcc-macro-correction.diff;h=d530cd0c4e10f7ca96178bac41645f09842cdac8;hb=HEAD Regards, Clément -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] portability of simgear
Hi Markus, I'm glad to see you are looking at simgear's update for Debian. However we are ready to release simgear 2.12 in next days, so I would suggest you to spend your time with simgear 2.12 instead of (soon outdated) 2.10 We have a lot of lacks for many years about package diffusion for Ubuntu/Debian ( version 2.6 is still diffused while we released 2.8 one year ago and 2.10 6 months ago) How can I help you maintaining this diffusion in order to always diffuse the latest stable version ? About platform's support: looking at our lacks I would suggest to focus on main platforms for now. If we are able to provide the 2.12 version for amd64 and i386 we are feeding 95% (maybe more) of our users. Linux users are lucky to have a package manager (compared to Windows users who need to download the package by searching on the Web) so it's important to keep the diffused package up-to-date in order to give a better experience to our users. Regards, Clément -- Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more! Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041391iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] portability of simgear
On 09/08/2013 12:16 PM, Clement de l'Hamaide wrote: I'm glad to see you are looking at simgear's update for Debian. However we are ready to release simgear 2.12 in next days, so I would suggest you to spend your time with simgear 2.12 instead of (soon outdated) 2.10 I'm aware of the upcoming release, eagerly awaiting it, and have already started packing. Given the decision to slip the 2.12 release, I decided to move on with 2.10 rather than wait another month, though. I'll certainly focus on 2.12 as soon as it's released. I don't think it changes a lot WRT portability, though. Do you? We have a lot of lacks for many years about package diffusion for Ubuntu/Debian ( version 2.6 is still diffused while we released 2.8 one year ago and 2.10 6 months ago) How can I help you maintaining this diffusion in order to always diffuse the latest stable version ? There are a few areas where I could need help or need to feed patches back. You could take a look at the patches currently applied to 2.10. Another issue I run into was the mixture of GPL vs LGPL in simgear. I personally don't care much, really. As a packager, though, I'd appreciate if at least all the files that are under copyright by the flightgear authors were released under the same license. (IANAL, but given there are GPL files in simgear, my understanding is that the entire library can only be used under the terms of the (more restrictive) GPL, rather than LGPL). Another thing I'm not sure about is the versioning policy. My understanding is that minor versions are not compatible between each other (i.e. 2.10 vs 2.12). How about the patch version? Is a (hypothetical) simgear 2.10.1 compatible with flightgear 2.10.0? Or vice versa? (FWIW, the former packager (Ove) took the pessimistic approach and I didn't change that.). About platform's support: looking at our lacks I would suggest to focus on main platforms for now. If we are able to provide the 2.12 version for amd64 and i386 we are feeding 95% (maybe more) of our users. According to Debian's popularity contest, we're closer to 98.4% of the participating systems being i386/amd64 (including the kfreebsd ones). And given that the next best two, i.e. ARM (arm, armel, armhf, together 0.8%) and PowerPC (0.5%) can hardly be considered gaming platforms, we're reasonably close to 100%. However, I like diversity and given the successes on sparc and mipsel give me hope of an easy fix... Linux users are lucky to have a package manager (compared to Windows users who need to download the package by searching on the Web) so it's important to keep the diffused package up-to-date in order to give a better experience to our users. Agreed. Markus Wanner signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more! Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041391iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] portability of simgear
On 8 Sep 2013, at 17:34, Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch wrote: I'm aware of the upcoming release, eagerly awaiting it, and have already started packing. Given the decision to slip the 2.12 release, I decided to move on with 2.10 rather than wait another month, though. I'll certainly focus on 2.12 as soon as it's released. I don't think it changes a lot WRT portability, though. Do you? Not that I'm aware of. There are a few areas where I could need help or need to feed patches back. You could take a look at the patches currently applied to 2.10. I was under the impression all patches had been up streamed - the correct process here is to file merge requests and email here (since unfortunately Gitorious merge requests don't notify people) Or you can simply email diffs here / to me, but either way the patches can be applied. Another issue I run into was the mixture of GPL vs LGPL in simgear. I personally don't care much, really. As a packager, though, I'd appreciate if at least all the files that are under copyright by the flightgear authors were released under the same license. (IANAL, but given there are GPL files in simgear, my understanding is that the entire library can only be used under the terms of the (more restrictive) GPL, rather than LGPL). This is a bug in our code. We have files with missing licenses, files which were moved between FG and SG, and files which were contributed public domain. However 'the license' for SimGear is LGPL and for FlightGear, GPL version 2 (or later at discretion, but we don't require version 3). Patches to clean up the situation are welcome. Given the license file and docs have always been clear which license each project is under, I think it is safe to consider file-level discrepancies as bugs and standardise. Another thing I'm not sure about is the versioning policy. My understanding is that minor versions are not compatible between each other (i.e. 2.10 vs 2.12). How about the patch version? Is a (hypothetical) simgear 2.10.1 compatible with flightgear 2.10.0? Or vice versa? (FWIW, the former packager (Ove) took the pessimistic approach and I didn't change that.). We very rarely do patch releases, but thanks to Jenkins is at least possible. Patch releases should be compatible I would hope, eg when I made the 2.10.1 patch of FG it still used SG 2.10.0 Minor versions are incompatible. According to Debian's popularity contest, we're closer to 98.4% of the participating systems being i386/amd64 (including the kfreebsd ones). And given that the next best two, i.e. ARM (arm, armel, armhf, together 0.8%) and PowerPC (0.5%) can hardly be considered gaming platforms, we're reasonably close to 100%. However, I like diversity and given the successes on sparc and mipsel give me hope of an easy fix... Personally I wouldn't spend your time, far more useful would be to get ARM working so we can run parts of the stack on Pis, Pandaboards and so on. This would be materially useful for various add-on functions, especially the canvas and fgcom. (I spend an increasing amount of my work time on OpenGL on ARM platforms, they have plenty of power to run graphics, depending on which GPU is on the SoC) Regards, James https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more! Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041391iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
