Re: OpenSceneGraph

[Rick L Vinyard Jr <rvinyard cs nmsu edu>]

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, 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.

> >  why not make 
> > the -devel packages conflict each other?
> >     
> That's one option.
>   
I rather not see that.