[ODE] SVN rev 966 builds squeaky clean on my OS X box

[Terry L. Triplett]

Yeah - let's just forget the whole 'shared library' idea and go back to
statically linked binaries and standalone application folders.  What are
these people thinking?  It worked for our forefathers - it should work for
us.  Kids these days just have it too good.  Nobody would want a library
managed by their distribution maintainers so that bug fixes, updates and
dependencies (across multiple versions, even) are easily managed.  It's much
more fun to track each package individually and update each separately when
a bug/security fix needs to be applied.
:-)

Said with tongue in cheek, obviously.  Since ODE probably isn't likely to be
used outside of a very small application domain (games or simulations), I
can see how "just bundle everything together with the app" makes sense for
the end-user.  Particularly on Windows, where before .NET and strong-names,
there wasn't a workable system to manage shared library versions.  For a
developer working on multiple projects, though, particularly on a *nix
workstation, having a development library managed by the system is useful,
since the system itself is usually the development environment, not the
contents of the home directory or /usr/local.

On 5/23/06, Rodrigo Hernandez <kwizatz at aeongames.com> wrote:
>
>
> What can I say? You're right, I even think I said the same thing on this
> list before. :-)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Jon Watte (ODE) wrote:
>
> > Systemwide ODE on Windows makes even less sense than on Linux.
> >
> > In general, I'd assume any game (or other project) shipped with ODE to
> > install the DLL in the application folder.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >          / h+
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://q12.org/pipermail/ode/attachments/20060523/8a4e0d4e/attachment.htm