Bruce wrote:
> Doing just Xorg, the libraries want fontconfig, which wants freetype
> which has a recommendation of harfbuzz where we recommend glib.

> Are you doing a gui?  If so window manager do you want to use?

My ultimate goal is to build a system without X.  I'd like to end up
with something similar
to Rogue Class Linux or NanoLinux.  NanoLinux uses nano-x which has
some color issues
with ATI video cards.  I tried building nano-x and some of the
examples that come with it.
Seemed less responsive on that particular computer than X is.  RCL
uses SDL and DirectFB.
I have DirectFB built from source and SDL built using DirectFB as a
back end.  I have
PicoGL and pdcurses with SDL_ttf support working with SDL.  There's a
port of an older
version of FLTK to DirectFB.  I've been looking into updating the code
to work with the
latest version of FLTK.  However, I think it's unlikely that the code
to support DirectFB
will ever make it into the official version of FLTK.  So, I'm thinking
about using an
approach similar to what nano-x does with nxlib.  Some of the DirectFB
code borrows
from nano-x anyway.  If I can get a compatibility layer with
functionality similar to
nxlib working with SDL as a backend, I should be able to run FLTK
applications anywhere
SDL runs.  I already have enough working to run a very simple application like
XFireworks on SDL without X.  With console based, ncurses/pdcurses,
picoGL, SDL and
FLTK applications, I should be able to cover most of the functionality
of a standard
desktop machine.  However, I'm still always looking for useful,
lightweight programs to
add to my growing collection of build scripts.

At one point, I did go through the steps of building the X libraries
with gcc/musl.  I used
freetype2 (without harfbuzz).  SDL_ttf and FLTK just need freetype2
for TTF support.  I really
haven't had a need for OpenType fonts yet.  fontconfig built with
freetype2 and libxml2
dependencies.  If I was going to run X, my current favorite window
manager is jwm.  It's a lot
more configurable than I originally thought it was, so I can give it a
minimalist look like
Openbox without any tool bars or icons.  It also has slightly less
dependencies than OpenBox
and I found it easier to customize the window title bars.

Sincerely,
Laura
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to