Re: [Tuxmath-devel] TuxMath 1.9.0 released

[Brendan L. <bm...@ri...>]

Gave this quite a bit of thought over the summer! My personal feeling is
that most people building from source will not have too much of a problem
downloading and installing t4k_common separately. As dependencies go, it's
slightly more work to install than, say, SDL, and there might be a few folks
who are uncomfortable doing the manual download + [cmake | autoreconf] +
make + install....but I think the best alternative is still to keep the
library a separate package.

We will have to be careful not to let newer builds break with somewhat older
package-managerized versions of t4k_common. I was guilty of this at times as
I migrated TuxMath over--committing code in TuxMath that depended on
t4k_common code that only existed on my local copy and broke when using the
t4k_common head.

Cheers,
Brendan

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:36 PM, David Bruce <dav...@gm...>wrote:

> Hi Holger,
>
> > I wonder if I should start with a t4k-common source package now, or
> include it
> > in tuxmath... thoughts?
>
> It's kind of just an academic point until we release a build of
> tuxtype that uses it.  Eventually it will be a separate package that
> tuxmath and tuxtype depend on, so my guess is that you might as well
> package it separately now to get the ball rolling.  But I don't really
> care, and if it is easier to keep it a single package for now, that's
> fine.
>
> Best,
> David
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App & Earn a Chance To Win $500!
> Tap into the largest installed PC base & get more eyes on your game by
> optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the
> Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Tuxmath-devel mailing list
> Tux...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tuxmath-devel
>