On 2008/11/11 10:55, Ted Unangst wrote: > I wouldn't terribly mind if glut were removed, although when I think > of glut I think of glut, not freeglut. > > My concerns primarily center around having an upgrade path. I already > have glut installed. Anybody who thinks "I need glut" is going to go > into the port and build it themselves. What do we do? > > Maybe the glut port can just be changed to use freeglut, then it's > transparent. >
I think that would be much simpler.
