0.11.1 Release

Everything about development and the OpenMW source code.
User avatar
Rhys
Posts: 113
Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 01:51
Location: Australia

Re: 0.11.1 Release

Post by Rhys » 27 Sep 2011, 01:03

raevol wrote:
Rhys wrote:The updated .7z file on the googlecode site does not contain the .dll or updated readme.
Are you sure your browser didn't have it cached? They look identical to me...
oops Yes, you are right, sorry :oops:

User avatar
Zini
Posts: 5537
Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 15:16

Re: 0.11.1 Release

Post by Zini » 27 Sep 2011, 07:51

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.

User avatar
Zini
Posts: 5537
Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 15:16

Re: 0.11.1 Release

Post by Zini » 27 Sep 2011, 08:47

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.

corristo
Posts: 493
Joined: 12 Aug 2011, 08:29

Re: 0.11.1 Release

Post by corristo » 27 Sep 2011, 11:31

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

User avatar
raevol
Posts: 3054
Joined: 07 Aug 2011, 01:12
Location: Caldera

Re: 0.11.1 Release

Post by raevol » 27 Sep 2011, 18:14

Uploading as we speak. Definitely not uploading release packages next time until they are tested.

User avatar
pvdk
Posts: 523
Joined: 12 Aug 2011, 16:34

Re: 0.11.1 Release

Post by pvdk » 28 Sep 2011, 01:04

Zini wrote:Merged next into master. From now on master is the main line of development again.
Had a look and it looks pretty solid to me! Good job on the merging.

User avatar
psi29a
Posts: 4718
Joined: 29 Sep 2011, 10:13
Location: Belgium
Gitlab profile: https://gitlab.com/psi29a/
Contact:

Re: 0.11.1 Release

Post by psi29a » 30 Sep 2011, 13:12

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. :)

User avatar
sirherrbatka
Posts: 2157
Joined: 07 Aug 2011, 17:21

Re: 0.11.1 Release

Post by sirherrbatka » 30 Sep 2011, 13:47

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).

User avatar
Zini
Posts: 5537
Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 15:16

Re: 0.11.1 Release

Post by Zini » 30 Sep 2011, 16:47

For the next release, 0.12.0, will there be any additional resources or changes in build system?
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 time being, will cmake be the build system of choice?
Not only for the time being. No intention to change. Ever.
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?
Unsure. I don't have enough experience with packaging under Linux to give sound advice here. Statically linking sounds very un-Linux though.
It would also be nice to know what versions of libraries are being used by the developers.
I don't have that list at hand, but I will try to compile it next week or so.

User avatar
psi29a
Posts: 4718
Joined: 29 Sep 2011, 10:13
Location: Belgium
Gitlab profile: https://gitlab.com/psi29a/
Contact:

Re: 0.11.1 Release

Post by psi29a » 03 Oct 2011, 10:16

@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.

Post Reply