It's possible to build both with and without double precision enabled, Debian is doing it with some patches. I'll take a look at how we can do something similar in Fedora.
Rich On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 3:38 AM Claire R <inquir...@chapien.net> wrote: > Thanks for the reply. I'll look into setting up a copr repo for a mygui > build soon, and see about being the new maintainer. > > 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> > <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> > <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. > >
-- _______________________________________________ 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
