oops Yes, you are right, sorryraevol wrote:Are you sure your browser didn't have it cached? They look identical to me...Rhys wrote:The updated .7z file on the googlecode site does not contain the .dll or updated readme.
0.11.1 Release
Re: 0.11.1 Release
Re: 0.11.1 Release
This is actually one of the cases where it would have been better to give the fixed uploaded file a different name (_a suffix or something). Well, next time. Or even better let's hope that there is no next time for last minute package fixes.
Re: 0.11.1 Release
Merged next into master. From now on master is the main line of development again.
I am not entirely sure if I did it right (both OpenMW and the Launcher work on my system though). The whole configuration situation is more confusing than before. I notices that the terminology in components/cfg does not seem to match what we are using in the forum and in the rest of the code. That is a problem. Also, with the Qt stuff in some places I was guessing stuff from context.
I would like to have both lgro and pvdk to have a look at the code again; just to make sure I did not mess up anything.
I am not entirely sure if I did it right (both OpenMW and the Launcher work on my system though). The whole configuration situation is more confusing than before. I notices that the terminology in components/cfg does not seem to match what we are using in the forum and in the rest of the code. That is a problem. Also, with the Qt stuff in some places I was guessing stuff from context.
I would like to have both lgro and pvdk to have a look at the code again; just to make sure I did not mess up anything.
Re: 0.11.1 Release
http://code.google.com/p/openmw/downloads/list mac package on this page is broken, I wrote about it to raevol couple days ago, but now it's published 
https://github.com/downloads/corristo/o ... 0.11.1.dmg here is fixed version
https://github.com/downloads/corristo/o ... 0.11.1.dmg here is fixed version
Re: 0.11.1 Release
Uploading as we speak. Definitely not uploading release packages next time until they are tested.
Re: 0.11.1 Release
Had a look and it looks pretty solid to me! Good job on the merging.Zini wrote:Merged next into master. From now on master is the main line of development again.
-
psi29a
- Posts: 5361
- Joined: 29 Sep 2011, 10:13
- Location: Belgium
- Gitlab profile: https://gitlab.com/psi29a/
- Contact:
Re: 0.11.1 Release
For the next release, 0.12.0, will there be any additional resources or changes in build system?
For the time being, will cmake be the build system of choice?
As for the deb lib dependencies, some of them are not yet in official Ubuntu repos. I've had good luck with the libraries provided by http://www.getdeb.ne but they are named differently than the ones provided by Andrew's PPA.
What would be best: statically compile against these libraries (no dependency necessary) or use those libraries provided by getdeb and point to it as a requirement before running openmw?
It would also be nice to know what versions of libraries are being used by the developers.
For the time being, will cmake be the build system of choice?
As for the deb lib dependencies, some of them are not yet in official Ubuntu repos. I've had good luck with the libraries provided by http://www.getdeb.ne but they are named differently than the ones provided by Andrew's PPA.
What would be best: statically compile against these libraries (no dependency necessary) or use those libraries provided by getdeb and point to it as a requirement before running openmw?
It would also be nice to know what versions of libraries are being used by the developers.
-
sirherrbatka
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: 07 Aug 2011, 17:21
Re: 0.11.1 Release
I want to point that although ubuntu is probably something like 1/3 of all linux pc (and debian + mint is maybe another 1/3) we still have many non-ubuntu desktops around. Focusing only on ubuntu is ok till 1.0.0 ? then we will need at least *.tar.gz archive besides deb (i would even say that we can stick with tar.gz only since someone will make package for debian repo and ubuntu will pull from them besides someone will add package to playdeb for sure).
Re: 0.11.1 Release
We are trying to get both the packaging (on Windows and OS X) and the configuration (data path) fully automated for 0.12.0. See this thread for more information.For the next release, 0.12.0, will there be any additional resources or changes in build system?
Not only for the time being. No intention to change. Ever.For the time being, will cmake be the build system of choice?
Unsure. I don't have enough experience with packaging under Linux to give sound advice here. Statically linking sounds very un-Linux though.What would be best: statically compile against these libraries (no dependency necessary) or use those libraries provided by getdeb and point to it as a requirement before running openmw?
I don't have that list at hand, but I will try to compile it next week or so.It would also be nice to know what versions of libraries are being used by the developers.
-
psi29a
- Posts: 5361
- Joined: 29 Sep 2011, 10:13
- Location: Belgium
- Gitlab profile: https://gitlab.com/psi29a/
- Contact:
Re: 0.11.1 Release
@Zini: I actually like cmake, so I am glad to see it not changing, ever. The linked answered my question in that the build system will change to support other targets.
Statically linking, while not "un-Linux", is pragmatic solution to certain library issues found in Linux distributions. My idea was top shoot for the top 3 and hope for the best. As an ex-Gentoo dev, I'll leave the ebuild an excercise to remaining devs.
Thanks again for the list of libraries in the other thread.
The linked answered my question in that the build system will change to support other targets.Statically linking, while not "un-Linux", is pragmatic solution to certain library issues found in Linux distributions. My idea was top shoot for the top 3 and hope for the best. As an ex-Gentoo dev, I'll leave the ebuild an excercise to remaining devs.
Thanks again for the list of libraries in the other thread.