[osg-users] Forked osgIntrospection to cppintrospection
alexandre at quessy.net
Mon Apr 18 22:12:15 PDT 2011
Hello dear OSG users,
Let's follow up on this thread, before I make another release of
cppintrospection, in order to package it in Debian! (and other
2011/3/15 Mike Wozniewski <mike at mikewoz.com>:
> In the meantime, there hasn't been a stable tag made for osgIntrospection in the svn. In order to build it, I usually end up deleting a bunch of wrappers that don't compile. Furthermore, we don't need all of the osgWrappers. We just need the core osgIntrospection classes (Type, MethodInfo, etc), as required for reflection or our own classes that we have derived from OSG.
> * ie, we don't need osgWrappers, just introspection *
Yes, we need a tag, so that I can package it for Debian GNU/Linux. We
also need it to be packaged separately.
> At some point Robert mentioned that osgIntrospection could become a generic C++ introspection, and this is the inspiration for 'cppintrospection'... something that can be used independently of OSG. I like this idea. Less bloat, and much faster to build for projects like ours.
> I think the name distinction is necessary, since legacy systems that have versions of OSG < 2.9.9 will contain a library called libosgIntrospection, that contains (is linked with) all of the osgWrappers.
For the name of the project, Mike Wozniewski and I think we need this
project to be renamed cppintrospection to avoid a name clash with the
former one, unless I am misled. We still use some old OSG that is
packaged in Debian, and it contains a osgIntrospection library.
Also, I really want to avoid working with Subversion, as Git is much
more fun to work with.
Those two issues are not really issues, after all. I would really like
to collaborate with you, Wang Rui, and benefit from your future
changes to this project. I don't plan to make any change to it, as I
am only interested in seeing it packaged, especially for Debian
For the CMake packaging, I would be totally up for having it aside
from the GNU Autotools, but I don't know how to use it, and have no
time for this. I know the GNU Autotools, and that's is it for now.
So, if I move forward with renaming this library and releasing a
2.12.0 tag to package it for Debian, would you be willing to move
along, Wang Rui, and contribute to it? Otherwise, I guess I will
simply apply you changes as patches from "upstream" to the gentle
What do you think?
More information about the osg-users