Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,i agree with sven, i think directfb should be kept as small as possible. i thought you could do all that widget stuff with gtk ontop of directfb. but i haven't played around with all that so i shouldn't say too much.
Karl Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 14:11, Ian Walters wrote:I haven't understood until now why you want to integrate all this into
Just warning everyone to forgive any bad wording in my mail AThat's OK, mate. I hope in time (and not to much of it) that DirectFB
couple of times I talked about DirectFB and DFB Cafe as if they
were the same thing.
and DFBCafe will be the same thing.
DirectFB? We try to keep DirectFB as small and modular as possible. I
don't see how a complete application framework fits into this. It
should be possible to develop all this on top of DirectFB and we are
willing to do the necessary changes if there are any but I don't see
why the scope of the DirectFB package should be extended in such a
way.
while we are on the topic of keeping directfb lean, do you guys think it's a good idea to have extra compile time options such as --disable-directfb-windows when we don't need to use any windows in a directfb application. i don't know whether this is a worth while saving but i always had the ideology of don't use it then don't have it.
cheers,
alex (from australia too)
--
Info: To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe directfb-dev" as subject.
