[osg-users] Recommended version?
robert.osfield at gmail.com
Tue Sep 2 02:28:14 PDT 2008
OSX support is still in a bit of flux as we're moving across to using
CMake, and having to cope with Apple not porting Quicktime and Carbon
API's to be 64bit ready. The XCode projects should work, as should
CMake but there might be a few caveates. Have a look through the
osg-users archives over the last two months.
I personally develop under Linux, and on a rare occasion an OSX box.
Both Linux and Windows are the most common platforms for OSG users,
with OSX only constituting about 10% of the community the last time we
In terms of ease of build, Linux is probably the most straight
forward, but any other unix platform should be pretty close behind,
Apple being the most problematic of the unix platforms thanks to a few
oddities with its API's and frameworks. Windows as a platforms throws
quite a few extra problems at developers, we try to cope with this in
our CMake build system, but one can't entirely fix all the caveats
inherent in VisualStudio.
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 10:10 AM, <Frank.vanMeurs at cs.uu.nl> wrote:
> Hey Robert,
> You're right of course, the stable releases also require testing for them
> to function properly and if nobody does so, bugs or minor issues just
> sneak in. I'd have loved to help out, but unfortunately I haven't
> considered myself skilled enough to contribute anything useful. Maybe I
> should have done so noneheless.
> The case with the Mac OS X install was that, whatever I did, I just didn't
> seem to get it all to work. I tried compiling it with provided Xcode
> projects (at least 2.5.x), using cmake and with all kinds of
> configurations, but without a working osgconv or osgviewer as a result.
> Again, I fear this may have been the result of my lack of knowledge on how
> to compile and install software properly. As such, I resorted to windows
> as the platform is more common and I expect OSG and the install procedure
> to be more thoroughly tested and noob-proof. Moreover, this is probably
> the case with a lot of other software as well, which justifies the switch
> in the end regardless of whether or not I get OSG working.
> Thanks a bunch for the answer though... I'll get to it with 2.6.0.
>> Hi Frank,
>> The latest stable release is 2.6 and is the version that most
>> developers will use during development and release of applications.
>> The 2.7.x series is a weekly developer release series that is bleeding
>> edge, and doesn't under go the same round of testing a stable releases
>> Even stable releases are dependent upon testing out in the community
>> to enable us to cover the huge range of build OS version/compiler
>> tools/dependencies/hardware out there, it could be that you've got a
>> combination that no one tested before 2.6. If you have a problem just
>> describe your setup and other members of the community should be able
>> to chip in to help you get things working. There certainly shouldn't
>> be any need to descend to getting a Windows machine to build the OSG.
>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 9:34 AM, <Frank.vanMeurs at cs.uu.nl> wrote:
>>> Hi everybody,
>>> Although I would have loved it to be otherwise, all of my attempts at
>>> installing/building OSG on my MacBook Pro (10.5.latest) have failed. So,
>>> have had to resort to arranging a windows machine on which I hope to be
>>> able to get things working. However, to circumvent any problems arising
>>> from minor bugs possibly left in the code, I would really like to know
>>> which OSG version is the recommended one. I'm seeing quite a few tags
>>> amongst the sources, but which one is 'the right one'? 2.6.0, 2.7.0 or
>>> perhaps 2.7.2?
>>> Thanks in advance!
>>> osg-users mailing list
>>> osg-users at lists.openscenegraph.org
>> osg-users mailing list
>> osg-users at lists.openscenegraph.org
> osg-users mailing list
> osg-users at lists.openscenegraph.org
More information about the osg-users