From: Timothy R. <tr...@si...> - 2012-09-11 13:33:20
|
We had stopped building these do to a loader issue on Windows (surprise, right?). Is this still a known issue? If so, and we never plan on using them again, the code needs to be cleaned up to reflect this. |
From: Alexander W. <ale...@gm...> - 2012-09-11 13:38:05
|
2012/9/11 Timothy Reaves <tr...@si...>: > We had stopped building these do to a loader issue on Windows (surprise, right?). Is this still a known issue? If so, and we never plan on using them again, the code needs to be cleaned up to reflect this. No, no, no... Other people's make own dynamic plugins for Stellarium - as example - StellariumScope. -- With best regards, Alexander |
From: Barry G. <bar...@ho...> - 2012-09-11 20:56:30
|
The Dynamic plug in system should looked into and got operational. We are getting a lot of static plugins that have limited use and should be down loadable extras instead of bloating the basic program. Barry Gerdes Beaumont Hills Observatory S 33' 41' 44" E 150' 56' 32" > Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:37:53 +0700 > From: ale...@gm... > To: ste...@li... > Subject: Re: [Stellarium-pubdevel] dynamic plugins? > > 2012/9/11 Timothy Reaves <tr...@si...>: > > We had stopped building these do to a loader issue on Windows (surprise, right?). Is this still a known issue? If so, and we never plan on using them again, the code needs to be cleaned up to reflect this. > > No, no, no... Other people's make own dynamic plugins for Stellarium - > as example - StellariumScope. > > -- > With best regards, Alexander > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Stellarium-pubdevel mailing list > Ste...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/stellarium-pubdevel |
From: Reaves, T. <tr...@si...> - 2012-09-12 00:13:54
|
Barry, have you tried recently to see if the loader issue has been resoled? They should either be cleaned up, or removed. And Alex, it really should go without saying, that if the dynamic cruft in our build files is removed, that in no way impacts anyone else ability to write dynamic plugins. On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Barry Gerdes <bar...@ho...>wrote: > The Dynamic plug in system should looked into and got operational. > We are getting a lot of static plugins that have limited use and should be > down loadable extras instead of bloating the basic program. > > Barry Gerdes > Beaumont Hills Observatory > S 33' 41' 44" E 150' 56' 32" > > > > Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:37:53 +0700 > > From: ale...@gm... > > To: ste...@li... > > Subject: Re: [Stellarium-pubdevel] dynamic plugins? > > > > > 2012/9/11 Timothy Reaves <tr...@si...>: > > > We had stopped building these do to a loader issue on Windows > (surprise, right?). Is this still a known issue? If so, and we never plan > on using them again, the code needs to be cleaned up to reflect this. > > > > No, no, no... Other people's make own dynamic plugins for Stellarium - > > as example - StellariumScope. > > > > -- > > With best regards, Alexander > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Live Security Virtual Conference > > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. > Discussions > > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in > malware > > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > > _______________________________________________ > > Stellarium-pubdevel mailing list > > Ste...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/stellarium-pubdevel > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Stellarium-pubdevel mailing list > Ste...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/stellarium-pubdevel > > |
From: Alexander W. <ale...@gm...> - 2012-09-12 02:46:20
|
2012/9/12 Reaves, Timothy <tr...@si...>: > Barry, have you tried recently to see if the loader issue has been resoled? > They should either be cleaned up, or removed. Which issue? If the loader having issue on Windows then why StellariumScope just works? > And Alex, it really should go without saying, that if the dynamic cruft in > our build files is removed, that in no way impacts anyone else ability to > write dynamic plugins. Which build files? In initial message you say about dropping API for dynamic plugins. Maybe we should be dropping support of Mac OS X and Windows too, because we having half-worked packages for OSX and Windows? -- With best regards, Alexander |
From: Bogdan M. <dag...@gm...> - 2012-09-12 15:57:06
|
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Timothy Reaves <tr...@si...> wrote: > We had stopped building these do to a loader issue on Windows (surprise, right?). Is this still a known issue? If so, and we never plan on using them again, the code needs to be cleaned up to reflect this. Could you please describe what do you mean in more details? Which plug-ins are "these"? The default plug-ins that are distributed with Stellarium? Dynamic plug-ins in general? What is the loader issue on Windows? Which code do you mean, the CMake files? Bogdan |
From: Reaves, T. <tr...@si...> - 2012-09-17 14:37:37
|
Gods, am I the only one who remembers this? Either the build files should build the included plugins dynamically, or statically. The other build code should be removed. It's that simple. On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Bogdan Marinov <dag...@gm...>wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Timothy Reaves > <tr...@si...> wrote: > > We had stopped building these do to a loader issue on Windows (surprise, > right?). Is this still a known issue? If so, and we never plan on using > them again, the code needs to be cleaned up to reflect this. > > Could you please describe what do you mean in more details? > > Which plug-ins are "these"? The default plug-ins that are distributed > with Stellarium? Dynamic plug-ins in general? What is the loader issue > on Windows? Which code do you mean, the CMake files? > > Bogdan > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Stellarium-pubdevel mailing list > Ste...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/stellarium-pubdevel > |
From: Alexander W. <ale...@gm...> - 2012-09-17 14:58:03
|
Hi! 2012/9/17 Reaves, Timothy <tr...@si...>: > Gods, am I the only one who remembers this? Tim, you change topic. Which dynamic plugins have troubles on Windows? > Either the build files should build the included plugins dynamically, or > statically. The other build code should be removed. It's that simple. Why we must drop the dynamic plugins feature? -- With best regards, Alexander |
From: Reaves, T. <tr...@si...> - 2012-09-17 15:01:53
|
No, I'm not changing the topic, you are! My original position is that if we are not going to build plugins dynamically, the build files need to be cleaned up to reflect that. On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Alexander Wolf <ale...@gm...>wrote: > Hi! > > 2012/9/17 Reaves, Timothy <tr...@si...>: > > Gods, am I the only one who remembers this? > > Tim, you change topic. Which dynamic plugins have troubles on Windows? > > > Either the build files should build the included plugins dynamically, or > > statically. The other build code should be removed. It's that simple. > > Why we must drop the dynamic plugins feature? > > -- > With best regards, Alexander > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Stellarium-pubdevel mailing list > Ste...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/stellarium-pubdevel > |
From: Alexander W. <ale...@gm...> - 2012-09-17 15:10:34
|
Hi! 2012/9/17 Reaves, Timothy <tr...@si...>: > No, I'm not changing the topic, you are! > > My original position is that if we are not going to build plugins > dynamically, the build files need to be cleaned up to reflect that. If we do not build any plugins dynamically, it does not mean that they have not been built dynamically by 3rd peoples. Why we must drop this feature? You propose drop dynamical buildings of plugins not only for those plugins, which stored into our repository. You propose drop all 3rd party plugins. Why? -- With best regards, Alexander |
From: Alexander W. <ale...@gm...> - 2012-09-17 16:40:38
|
Maybe you mean a cleaning cmake files for plugins directory? WBW, Alexander 17.09.2012 22:10 пользователь "Alexander Wolf" <ale...@gm...> написал: > > Hi! > > 2012/9/17 Reaves, Timothy <tr...@si...>: > > No, I'm not changing the topic, you are! > > > > My original position is that if we are not going to build plugins > > dynamically, the build files need to be cleaned up to reflect that. > > If we do not build any plugins dynamically, it does not mean that they > have not been built dynamically by 3rd peoples. Why we must drop this > feature? You propose drop dynamical buildings of plugins not only for > those plugins, which stored into our repository. You propose drop all > 3rd party plugins. > > Why? > > -- > With best regards, Alexander |