> As mentioned before, most of that work has been done. However, we failed to > rebuild the Cmake setup after moving from 1.1 to 1.3. Any help here is > greatly appreciated.
We tend to approach CMake a little differently than what I have seen in FLTK. We would be more than happy to work on this with you! > > 2. Doxygen - Done. Don't worry. No worries. See my previous post. > > 3. Platform layer -A HAL would allow wonderful things like FLTK widgets > > inside OpenGL windows > or on top of live video. Yummy. Not to mention easy ports to all kinds of > minimal platfomrs. Amen brother. > Wouldn't it be much easier to join the FLTK team and use al the existing > infrastructure, like web page, SVN, bug list, and mailing lists? Why would > you want to fork a perfectly healthy project? We don't intend to fork FLTK. I suppose I may have sent the wrong message. Especially with regard to a project name (which was only for internal purposes) or the use of the word "project" in general. Perhaps the word "subproject" would have been a better choice. It was pretty late when I was posting stuff, so I may have mistakenly used the word "fork" or given the wrong impression. What I meant to say was that we have seen the result of FLTK2 and would prefer not to end up in the same place. Putting our work into the FTLK project IS the first and best choice. I must say I am pleasantly surprised by how y'all are responding to this (based on past experience with other projects). We are just trying to find a good place to setup camp. However, I would imagine that something will come up eventually that everyone won't be as interested in. That being said, it would appear that may be a little ways off. Why don't we just take things one step at a time and see how it goes? We could start a dialog about the CMake build and just let things take their natural course from there. Thanks, Gerry _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
