Re: GL and libepoxy

> On Mar 7, 2015, at 1:49 PM, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > > Are you sure? This shouldn't be the case since > > https://github.com/anholt/libepoxy/commit/e3051481cc9f5b7b36b317aff1454ee16ea9cdb9 > > > > On Fri

Re: GL and libepoxy

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > Are you sure? This shouldn't be the case since > > > https://github.com/anholt/libepoxy/commit/e3051481cc9f5b7b36b317aff1454ee16ea9cdb9 > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:54 PM, John Ralls wrote: > >> It looks like we've committed to using lib

Re: GL and libepoxy

Are you sure? This shouldn't be the case since https://github.com/anholt/libepoxy/commit/e3051481cc9f5b7b36b317aff1454ee16ea9cdb9 On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:54 PM, John Ralls wrote: > It looks like we've committed to using libepoxy[1] as a shim for GL > support. It looks quite nice, but there's a

GL and libepoxy

It looks like we've committed to using libepoxy[1] as a shim for GL support. It looks quite nice, but there's a catch: In spite of the claim in our INSTALL that it's cross-platform, it actually depends on X11. I think that means that we need to have a separate GL interface per-backend. Regards

Re: GTK+, WM, desktops and CSD

Le 06/03/2015 02:12, Matthias Clasen a écrit : > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Olivier Fourdan wrote: > > […] > >> Ideally, GTK should be able to use CSD even without a compositor. The >> only reason it requires a compositor is because it uses the shadows as >> resize handles. Ideally, it shou

Re: GTK+, WM, desktops and CSD

Hi Matthias, On 6 March 2015 at 02:12, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Olivier Fourdan wrote: > I have little desire to discuss the pros and cons of csd and whether > something essential (consistency ?!) was lost when we started using > them, but a few points are worth r