The only thing that I would like to add is that maybe we should start
keeping a required packages list somewhere.
If I am correct, then right now we have requirements as follows:
X11R6--preferably XFree86 3.3.1 or higher
glibc--2.1 or higher
egcs or compatible--2.1.2 or higher release compatibility
For LINUX: a 2.2.0 or 2.4.0 series kernel
SDL--when we get that far
There may be some other things..., but I thought that I'd get it started
now.....
Drew Northup, N1XIM
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> Of Ramon van Handel
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 12:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [plex86] Video architecture
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Kevin Lawton wrote:
> > Well, first I think people got me wrong. My point is that our virtual
> > graphics card should spit out a _generic_ set of primitives, for which
> > there are GUI _specific_ methods. One set of specific methods for
> > SDL, one for X, one for Win32, etc.
>
> But SDL itself is a wrapper for X, or Win32 (depending in the platform
> :)). That's the whole goal of SDL: to write ONE interface to multiple
> platforms. Replicating the SDL idea doesn't seem to have much point...
>
> > Architecting our video handling to expect, assume, and rely on SDL
> > is a broken idea. SDL looks quite cool, and I think using it might
> > make a good primary use target. Not all users will have it installed,
> > so we need to have X specific methods too.
>
> Well, people may not have X installed either. And binaries could be
> statically linked... I don't quite see the point; requiring specific
> libraries for a software package is a normal practice in software
> engineering, what's wrong with that?
>
> > Anyways, why don't I rephrase this and say, let's write X and SDL
> > methods in parallel. But we at least ought to have X. I'm not
> > keen on having plex86 _dependent_ on X, but I think it's an excellent
> > idea to have SDL so we can make the video processing kick-ass.
>
> But SDL *IS* X on systems which don't support a more advanced form of
> graphics... that's the whole idea behind the use of SDL!
>
> We want to use SDL in order to save us a lot of porting work. If you're
> going to be doing porting anyway, might as well forget about
> SDL... there's no point...
>
> -- Ramon
>
>
