Hello Wang Rui, I assume you wanted to reply to all, so I CC the mailing list.
2011/3/13 Wang Rui <wangra...@gmail.com>: > 2011/3/13 Alexandre Quessy <alexan...@quessy.net>: >> I renamed it because we thought its namespace would clash with older >> OSG versions. Is it really the case? If so, should we rename it to >> cppintrospection as I did, or keep it named osgIntrospection? >> > > I don't think it will be a problem. The newer versions of OSG don't > have a corresponding osgIntrospection library right now. And people > working with them could directly download the new merged project for > use. So, do we rename this library to cppintrospection or keep osgIntrospection as a name? The name cppintrospection had been mention earlier. It's already done. Let's do it, no? > > I don't know if the OSG official website could support Git. Personal I > have no problem with other better source control solutions. :-) > Of course it would be better to keep it on openscenegraph.org. It think a git repo with cgit is rather easy to set up. >> Are you OK if we use the GNU Autotools for the packaging? It's simply >> that I know them, and it's rather easy to do pretty much anything with >> them. I made a pkg-config file with a version number in it. >> > > I'm familiar with the CMake tool and we could just keep two ways for > developers who are willing to make use of the project. For example, > Windows users may generate their wrappers by simply configure cmake > options. As Robert Osfield mentionned, CMake is better with XCode and VS Studio. (good not to need premake4.exe for that task) I would rather go with the Autotools. I can try if I can keep both in the repository. That's a very good idea. Later, -- Alexandre Quessy http://alexandre.quessy.net/ _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
