Ramon van Handel wrote:
> 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...
Do we know that the SDL interface will keep up with advances
in X+DGA, 3D accelerations, etc?
I'm not big on the idea of _requiring_ another library, as it
adds to the memory footprint of plex86, especially for
bordline machines.
If there are no big arguments against doing an SDL port
first, then OK let's do that. But tying our protocol specifically
to SDL is a major architectural blunder. You have to ask yourself
as a developer, do I need to do this? The answer is no. In
which case you abstract the interface, and leave the door open.
I have not heard a single good argument as to why we should lock
our selves down to SDL.
-Kevin
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Kevin Lawton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MandrakeSoft, Inc. Plex86 developer
http://www.linux-mandrake.com/ http://www.plex86.org/
