Hi, >From Mac OS side, there seems no problem in using headers of any version of Boost as long as FlightGear works fine. I'll just grab it and build FG with boost headers. No difficulties. However, if we're going to use boost libraries before the next official release, I need to make sure the binary works on at least some Macs, including ppc/intel and OS X 10.4/10.5. Probably it needs some weeks to collect feedbacks.
So I want to hear Tim's (and others') opinion about: (1) what are the pros in using Boost especially in FlightGear. If that doesn't give us any improvement in quality (like maintainability, testability, usability, response, performance or whatever you name it) or functionality in a clear way, we can live without it, at least until the next official release (or until the next release branch is made). (2) Are we going to use boost libraries in the near future? Hope not until the next release. Again, I am not against using Boost at all. I just want to know how it effects or affects FlightGear from developers' and users' viewpoints. If it is determined to use boost, I'll do my best to keep up with these things. Plus, I ain't retrospective. PLIB era also got me a lot of troubles. Do you remember that 0.9.10 on Mac OS X released several months after Windows/Linux had released? 0.9.10 often crashed if ATC is on. Now I can make FlightGear/OSG with less problem, and it works with less crashes. So I don't think FlightGear/CVS-HEAD + OSG is not that stable. I admit that we are still catching up with PLIB in some functions like shadows and FG + OSG requires longer build time, it often crash and I got some crash reports, but so what? OSG + FG give us much more functions like multiple views, particles, and lots more. Best, Tat On Nov 21, 2008, at 8:20 AM, "Csaba Halász" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Tim Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> FlightGear now has a dependency on the Boost library header files. >> See boost.org >> or your favorite distribution. I built against version 1.34, but >> the latest >> (1.37) should be fine too. > > Okay, I know I am kind of late with this, but I just found out that > debian stable comes with 1.33. Upgrading to 1.34 would mean having to > upgrade gcc to 4.2 and libstdc++ as well. Which would cascade to a lot > of other programs. Assuming you haven't used it extensively in ready > but not checked in code, I suggest to postpone boost usage until after > the planned release is made. Hopefully by the time we release our next > version after that, distributions will be shipping 1.34 or later. > > Just an idea. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
