[Pkg-osg-devel] [Alberto Luaces] Re: About to upload 3.2.0~rc1

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

2013/7/30 Alberto Luaces <aluaces at udc.es>:
>> So that's it, I'm building (and if succesfull, upload) this version,
>> after the long delay.
>
> Ooops! I haven't had any time to say that 3.2.0 just had been released
> last week.  I promise to have it ready this week :)

It built fine and I uploaded it a few hours ago, because I don't know
if I would be able to devote enough time in the next few days/weeks
(continuous time to perform all the necessary steps, that is) and
didn't want to delay it longer.

Now it needs to pass the NEW queue because of the new binary package
names anyway, which will take a while, and the names will be preserved
between this RC and the final version.  It has virtually no changes
with the final 3.2.0 so everything should be fine.

I submitted bug reports for the 6 packages build-depending on openscenegraph.

  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=pkg-osg-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org

Due to the change in osg::Geometry, all these seem to fail compiling.  Of these:

- flightgear, simgear and fgrun are part of the same basic package and
with the same maintainer group, and seem a bit abandoned.

- openwalnut don't know

- choreonoid seems to have an active maintainer and very recent uploads

- osgearth is quite outdated and I read in some list that it has
license incompatibility problems (openssl and others), so it might as
well be removed


I tried to patch them by replacing osg::Geometry with
deprecated_osg::Geometry but doesn't seem to work out of the box in
the cases that I tried (there are additional errors), which are about
4 out of the 6.  But some of them are already FTBFS due to other
problems, like missing -lpthread, and not fixed for months, missing
from testing in some cases.

So let's keep an eye on them.

In the future, we might want to get track of this situation with
library transitions (or provide multiple versions of the library at
the same time), but since the number of packages are low and not
widely used, and not very well maintained in some cases (it's likely
that some of the maintainers will not pay attention to the transition
anyway), and involves quite a lot of bureaucracy, I didn't think that
it was necessary in this case -- if we get told off because of this,
it's my fault.

Cheers.