Thread: [PyOpenGL-Users] 2.0.2.01 (alpha) vs an actual release?
Brought to you by:
mcfletch
From: Silverstein <he...@sc...> - 2006-09-25 17:42:04
|
Is there any eta on a beta or an actual release for 2.0.2? Also, other than swig 1.23 compatibility, it wasn't clear to me from the Notes as to what motivation there is to upgrade to 2.0.2. In our case we will be using python 2.4. We have a bunch of other swig-wrapped python stuff and so we had hoped to use 1.23 with it as well (due to pyopengl's 2.0.2's requirement). However, besides having to change a bunch of the typemap definitions we experienced a lot of memory bloat. so we are building our other wrappers with 1.21 and pyopengl with 1.23. This seems to work fine. So this leads me back to my 2nd question: does it make sense to use 2.0.2 (ie what good reasons are there to use 2.0.2 now even though it is listed as alpha)? We could try to build pyopengl 2.0.1 with v 1.13 of swig and our software with v1.21. Does anyone know if this is going to be problematic? Thanks, Herc |
From: Greg E. <gre...@ca...> - 2006-09-26 03:27:45
|
Silverstein wrote: > Is there any eta on a beta or an actual release for 2.0.2? I had to re-parse that sentence a couple of times before I realised that "eta" was meant to be the acronym rather than the greek letter. :-) -- Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | Carpe post meridiem! | Christchurch, New Zealand | (I'm not a morning person.) | gre...@ca... +--------------------------------------+ |