On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 09:47 -0600, Rick L Vinyard Jr wrote:
Here is Ben's (VTP upstream) reply regarding OSG 2.0:
> Rick,
>
> 2.0 changes the OSG API a fair deal, and doesn't have any compelling
> features that i've yet seen. Hence, not much hurry on the adoption. We'll
> probably move to it after the next VTP release.
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 11:25 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>> The background behind all this:
>>>
>>> Do people consider it worth to have OSG-1 and OSG-2 packages in
>>> parallel?
>>>
>> Note I'm not an OSG user, but judging from this thread, yes that sounds like
>> the best solution.
>>
> It's an option I've been considering. Unfortunately OSG upstream has
> committed a couple of decisions which render parallel installation
> complicated (e.g. they dropped pkgconfig support :( )
>
>
>>> The run-time environments/packages could rather easily be made
>>> installable in parallel (e.g. by introducing a set of OSG-2 packages),
>>> but implementing this for the devel packages would be non-trivial.
>>>
>> If it really is a lot of pain to make them parallel installable,
>>
> The devel libs conflict, so the only option I see is installing OSG-2's
> devel libs into a %{_libdir}/osg-2.0 subdir.
>
Personally, I'd rather see the OSG-1 libs in an osg-1.0 subdir,
This would be
incompatible to OSG-1 as it has been shipped until now.
and
basically treat the OSG-1 packages as legacy packages. That way, the
OpenSceneGraph package can just move ahead to 2.0 and packages that need
OSG-1 will have to explicitly state it.
This is the replacing "OSG-1 by
compat-OSG-1 packages" idea. It's only
applicable to the run-time packages, but not to the devel packages.
>> why not make
>> the -devel packages conflict each other?
>>
> That's one option.
>
I rather not see that.
Neither do I, but ... it seems inevitable.
Ralf