[osg-users] Osgswig

Gerwin de Haan gerwindehaan at gmail.com
Fri Jul 4 05:47:26 PDT 2008


You're right, that's probably the best way to go I think. You might have
noticed some of the thoughts I wrote down on the osgswig wiki,
http://code.google.com/p/osgswig/wiki/DevelopmentPlans .
It would be great if we could produce pre-packaged builds to match with the
osg binary builds (such as Weiblen's: http://mew.cx/osg/)
regards, Gerwin

On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 3:15 AM, Hartmut Seichter <lists at technotecture.com>
wrote:

>
> Thanks for the check ... as OpenSceneGraph 2.x is more or less a moving
> target we need to find a better way to deal with these things.
>
> I am kind of keen to use branches for major versions, like 2.2, 2.4 and
> upcoming 2.6 and the head for the latest OSG trunk (or close to it) ... if
> we start to use precompiler macros we might end up with a completely
> unmaintainable interface collection. What you reckon?
>
> H
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openscenegraph.org/pipermail/osg-users-openscenegraph.org/attachments/20080704/487c8fa3/attachment-0003.htm>


More information about the osg-users mailing list