I did some testing, and I was able to build all packages dependent on bullet with double precision enabled except for efl and gazebo. That said, I think that has more to do with my own lack of experience with RPM than anything else, as well as other dependencies. However, the real issue here isn't whether or not things build; rather, switching to USE_DOUBLE_PRECISION completely changes the performance profile of anything that builds with Bullet. This means, essentially, every program dependent on it currently that still builds /will /likely run worse, especially if the extra precision is not needed/worth the trade-off. Having done some research, I believe changing to USE_DOUBLE_PRECISION for the base package may be a mistake in the long run.
Would it be possible to provide a build that uses double precision as a separate package? ie bullet3-double or something along those lines. Alternatively, I can statically link a build just for openMW into the package, as I might do with openscenegraph, but again I'd like input from the maintainers of bullet with regards to that first.
All that said, I'm going to work on packaging OpenMW and mygui tomorrow while waiting for an answer; I can always make adjustments once I get the necessary feedback.
-Claire R On 6/6/25 23:43, Cristian Le via devel wrote:
On 7 June 2025 07:48:50 CEST, Claire R<inquir...@chapien.net> wrote:Note that I will be building it with my own build of mygui, as mygui is currently retired, but that shouldn't be too relevant at the moment; right now I want to tackle the potential blocker of our bullet build first.Perfectly fine, just do it in a copr so the maintainers can check your work.There's another minor detail involving openscenegraph I'd like to cover; rather, a question. OpenMW is fully compatible with our build of OSG; however, they have their own fork<https://github.com/OpenMW/osg> of openscenegraph. According to the OpenMW devs, their fork gives a 10-15% performance boost; it is however highly customized to their codebase, and thus providing it as our own package is not viable. We can build it with standard OSG, of course, and I believe the performance hit is most relevant on lower end systems (openMW runs on android, for instance, so I imagine it's very relevant there), but I figured I'd ask anyway; do we have a way of bundling in custom dependencies like that? Can their version of osg be included in the openMW, or is there no mechanism for that in how Fedora packages things? To be clear, it's fine if that's the case, but for the sake of completion I figured it would be prudent to ask.Up to your discretion. If you have genuine reasons, forks can be used. Just keep in mind that the fork should be well-maintained and address any security issues from upstream. You would be on the hook for monitoring those changes. And make sure it is linked statically or the library is renamed.
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
