> It should be possible to achieve these same benefits with one CMake system.
> -Paul
I was thinking about 2 separate ones due to way the UI tool works on windows.
You just get a big long list of options, with a bunch hidden behind an
'Advanced'
checkbox.
So you have carefully review every line
> Perhaps the cmake could be split in 2, so there's one for the
> core (and a couple of examples) and another for the extras?
> That would work with visual studio projects but I don't know
> if that would work with linux build systems...
I don't see why we need two CMake systems to get this fun
HI Paul,
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Paul Martz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only conceivable downside (that I can think of) is that new users might
> attempt to use some code that has fallen into a state of disrepair, giving
> them a bad out-of-box experience.
If a component of the OSG d
> One possible solution might be to bring maintenance and
> distribution of these 3rd party plugins directly into the
> core OpenSceneGraph distribution in the form of a collection
> of src/3rdPartyPlugins projects. Some of these might be
> compilable C++ code such as a Firefox plugin, while o
4 matches
Mail list logo
