Andreas wrote: >The OSX port is unmaintained - for years. I lost interest, because I >was the only one who cared back then. I had no support and no >feedback. That wasn't a motivation. And to be honest I have no clue >how this huge mess of APIs in OSX is meant to be used. I think I >called once for developers but no answer.
I am sorry I was not around at that time. I would be interested in DirectFB on OSX. And yes, I agree that the current state of OSX is very strange if you are not aware of the history of different parts of the OS. THe result is, that there are totally different APIs for things that are essentially the same. >But I had it working in DirectFB 0.9.23 (or previous?) > >The worst thing is that even if you get it working you will end up in >a port that works only fullscreen. >Due to the nature of OSX, there are many technical difficulties in >creating a clean OSX port. I see several different concepts of implementing DirectFB on top of OSX, but - coming from the Macintosh world - I don't know which way would appeal to the typical Linux user of DirectFB. >Maybe - if you really want to run something for OSX on DirectFB, >maybe the easiest way to right now is use X11 for OSX. My motivation for looking at DirectFB was to avoid X11. I thought a lower level and "smaller" approach at cross platfom graphic apps would probably be more interesting. >If a miracle happens I might resume my work on the port. OK, contact me, if you like, for some info about OSX APIs in case of miracle happening. In the current state I would suggest changing the documentation in DirectFB that the native OSX port is broken to avoid more wasted time. Running ontop of SDL or X11 is a different case. Greetings, Christian _______________________________________________ directfb-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-users
