> > this seems like it might be better suited to PATCHFILES.sitename > > / SITES.sitename rather than including in files/? > > Siwtched to PATHFILES/SITES
thsnks. > > however, I wonder if in this situation it might be better to use > > their bundled patched copy anyway (rather than 'system glfw'), > > then there's no worry about whether patches impact other users of glfw, > > theor whether they might get in way of updating glfw.. > > They don't bundle a patched copy. LWJGL is geared towards doing > their own releases that get done via CI. They use a patched fork. ah sorry, I saw the https://github.com/LWJGL/lwjgl3/tree/master/modules/lwjgl/glfw/src dir but didn't look inside. > The changes only add functionality to GLFW, it doesn't change any > existing functionality. I'm not worried about it breaking other > consumers. > > In terms of worry about future updates, glfw actually is pretty slow > to do new releases. I'm not realy worried about problems updating > any time soon. fair enough. > @@ -3,12 +3,12 @@ Skip making html documenttaion even if D > Index: docs/CMakeLists.txt > --- docs/CMakeLists.txt.orig > +++ docs/CMakeLists.txt > -@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ foreach(file IN LISTS source_files) > +@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ foreach(file IN LISTS source_files) > endforeach() > > set(DOXYGEN_SKIP_DOT TRUE) > --find_package(Doxygen) > -+#find_package(Doxygen) > +-find_package(Doxygen ${MINIMUM_DOXYGEN_VERSION} QUIET) > ++#find_package(Doxygen ${MINIMUM_DOXYGEN_VERSION} QUIET) why not set -DGLFW_BUILD_DOCS=OFF instead of patching?
