Curt wrote: > As a project, FlightGear needs to depend on the stable releases of the > stuff it depends on, not cvs development trees. That get's to be too > big of a mess. Many distributions include the latest stable version of > plib, and that is often easier to build. It's ok for developers to use > cvs versions of our dependencies, as long as they don't break > compatibility with the latest stable version.
After about 1 second's consideration, I realized that of course this is the only reasonable policy. Unfortunately, now I remember why I changed to using crease: >Martin Spott wrote: >> "Curtis L. Olson" wrote: >> >>>Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/releases >>>In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv18174 >> >> >>>Added Files: >>> FlightGear-0.9.6.tar.gz >>>Log Message: >>>Official source release for v0.9.6 >> >> >> I'm asking just to find out: Do we all agree that it makes much sense >> to build the upcoming binary releases with a "crease-patched" version >> of current PLIB CVS ? > > >I will .... > >Erik So we have the situation where at least some of the current binary releases, do not follow this policy. The Windows for one seems to accept the crease token. We speak of Mathias' crease patch, but we should remember that it also produced around 40% increase in performance, certainly for Cygwin. I would not like to go back to the status quo ante, but I realize the very good rationale for it. Regards, Vivian _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
