SDL 1.2 status?

Hi there,

I was wondering whether there will be another SDL 1.2.x release at some point? I know that when 1.2.14 was released the annoncement was that this would be the last 1.2.x release. But as predicted back then, there have been several nice fixes on the 1.2 branch since then (fullscreen & build fixes for OS X; coldfire support; Windows event handling fixes; Joystick fixes; and several more).

So, any word on this? If there are really no future release planned, I would instead start to create patches for the SDL package for Fink I maintain.

Cheers,
Max

hi,

perhaps a separate release team could be made for SDL 1.2? Much like how
other projects have a separate team for older series. eg, the linux 2.4
series has separate release managers.

So Sam & Co can concentrate on perfecting SDL 1.3, and other people can make
bug fixes as needed to 1.2.

cu.On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Max Horn wrote:

Hi there,

I was wondering whether there will be another SDL 1.2.x release at some
point? I know that when 1.2.14 was released the annoncement was that this
would be the last 1.2.x release. But as predicted back then, there have been
several nice fixes on the 1.2 branch since then (fullscreen & build fixes
for OS X; coldfire support; Windows event handling fixes; Joystick fixes;
and several more).

So, any word on this? If there are really no future release planned, I
would instead start to create patches for the SDL package for Fink I
maintain.

Cheers,
Max


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

At least for windows, I can create some binaries.

My Linux environment is not up to date.On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Ren? Dudfield wrote:

hi,

perhaps a separate release team could be made for SDL 1.2? Much like how
other projects have a separate team for older series. eg, the linux 2.4
series has separate release managers.

So Sam & Co can concentrate on perfecting SDL 1.3, and other people can
make bug fixes as needed to 1.2.

cu.

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Max Horn wrote:

Hi there,

I was wondering whether there will be another SDL 1.2.x release at some
point? I know that when 1.2.14 was released the annoncement was that this
would be the last 1.2.x release. But as predicted back then, there have been
several nice fixes on the 1.2 branch since then (fullscreen & build fixes
for OS X; coldfire support; Windows event handling fixes; Joystick fixes;
and several more).

So, any word on this? If there are really no future release planned, I
would instead start to create patches for the SDL package for Fink I
maintain.

Cheers,
Max


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

maybe at release time of 1.3 they are going to release a
1.2.15-transactional which includes only code fixes, no new features
and only suited for devs who don’t really want to use sdl 1.3 yet –
somewhat similar to release of X 6.9 and X 7.0
VittorioOn Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Ren? Dudfield wrote:

hi,

perhaps a separate release team could be made for SDL 1.2?? Much like how
other projects have a separate team for older series.? eg, the linux 2.4
series has separate release managers.

So Sam & Co can concentrate on perfecting SDL 1.3, and other people can make
bug fixes as needed to 1.2.

cu.

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Max Horn wrote:

Hi there,

I was wondering whether there will be another SDL 1.2.x release at some
point? I know that when 1.2.14 was released the annoncement was that this
would be the last 1.2.x release. But as predicted back then, there have been
several nice fixes on the 1.2 branch since then (fullscreen & build fixes
for OS X; coldfire support; Windows event handling fixes; Joystick fixes;
and several more).

So, any word on this? If there are really no future release planned, I
would instead start to create patches for the SDL package for Fink I
maintain.

Cheers,
Max


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

Le Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:03:45 +0100
Ren? Dudfield a ?crit:

hi,

perhaps a separate release team could be made for SDL 1.2? Much like how
other projects have a separate team for older series. eg, the linux 2.4
series has separate release managers.

So Sam & Co can concentrate on perfecting SDL 1.3, and other people can make
bug fixes as needed to 1.2.

I also think it would be nice to have some release (every 6 or 12
months?) for SDL 1.2 once in a while; at least for bugfixes, or
enhancements for platforms not supported by SDL 1.3–
Patrice Mandin
WWW: http://pmandin.atari.org/
Programmeur Linux, Atari
Sp?cialit?: D?veloppement, jeux

“who writes the code, decides”

Original Message:

hi,

perhaps a separate release team could be made for SDL 1.2? Much like how
other projects have a separate team for older series. eg, the linux 2.4
series has separate release managers.

So Sam & Co can concentrate on perfecting SDL 1.3, and other people can make
bug fixes as needed to 1.2.

I also think it would be nice to have some release (every 6 or 12
months?) for SDL 1.2 once in a while; at least for bugfixes, or
enhancements for platforms not supported by SDL 1.3

Yes, I agree, SDL should definitely have regular releases, like every 6 months or so. Just like Ubuntu! Even though a new version is not complete (1.3 in this case), there should still be some regular bugfix release of the previous version (in this case 1.2).---------------------------------------------------------------------


|___ | / \ |__ ||___ | / \ | —\ /
| | / /\ \ | | | | / /\ \ | |-- -| / /\
| | / / \ \ | | | | / / \ \ | | - -| / / \
| | / /
\ \ _ | | _ | | / /\ \ | | - -| / /\
| | / ____ \ | || | | || | / ____ \ | |-- -| / ____
|| // _\ _/ _/ // _\ |___/ /_/ _\

Hiya

I’d just like to say thank-you for STOS :smiley:

IanOn 25 May 2010, at 17:26, Patrice Mandin <mandin.patrice at orange.fr> wrote:

Le Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:03:45 +0100
Ren? Dudfield a ?crit:

hi,

perhaps a separate release team could be made for SDL 1.2? Much
like how
other projects have a separate team for older series. eg, the
linux 2.4
series has separate release managers.

So Sam & Co can concentrate on perfecting SDL 1.3, and other people
can make
bug fixes as needed to 1.2.

I also think it would be nice to have some release (every 6 or 12
months?) for SDL 1.2 once in a while; at least for bugfixes, or
enhancements for platforms not supported by SDL 1.3


Patrice Mandin
WWW: http://pmandin.atari.org/
Programmeur Linux, Atari
Sp?cialit?: D?veloppement, jeux

“who writes the code, decides”


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

Le Tue, 25 May 2010 18:52:03 +0100
Ian Norton a ?crit:

Hiya

I’d just like to say thank-you for STOS :smiley:

Sorry, but it’s not me who wrote STOS :).–
Patrice Mandin
WWW: http://pmandin.atari.org/
Programmeur Linux, Atari
Sp?cialit?: D?veloppement, jeux

“who writes the code, decides”

i don’t agree, sdl 1.2 should have ONE final release and that should
happen at sdl 1.3 release
having a library updated every 6 months will just make packaging and
distribution more difficult
think that the very ubuntu you cite has had sdl_image/net/ttf back of
a couple of revisions (up to 9.10, haven’t tested for 10.04)

bye
VittorioOn Tue, May 25, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Kikolani wrote:

Original Message:

hi,

perhaps a separate release team could be made for SDL 1.2? ?Much like how
other projects have a separate team for older series. ?eg, the linux 2.4
series has separate release managers.

So Sam & Co can concentrate on perfecting SDL 1.3, and other people can make
bug fixes as needed to 1.2.

I also think it would be nice to have some release (every 6 or 12
months?) for SDL 1.2 once in a while; at least for bugfixes, or
enhancements for platforms not supported by SDL 1.3

Yes, I agree, SDL should definitely have regular releases, like every 6 months or so. Just like Ubuntu! Even though a new version is not complete (1.3 in this case), there should still be some regular bugfix release of the previous version (in this case 1.2).


?________ ? ?__ ? ? ?________ ?________ ? ?__ ? ? ?_____ ? ? ? __
|___ ?| ?/ ?\ ? ?|__ ||___ | ?/ ?\ ? ?| ?—\ ? ? / ?
? | ?| ? ?/ /\ \ ? ? ? ?| | ? ? ? | | ? / /\ \ ? | |-- -| ? / /\
? | ?| ? / / ?\ \ ? ? ? | | ? ? ? | | ?/ / ?\ \ ?| | ?- -| / / ?\
? | ?| ? / /
\ \ ? _ ? | | ? _ ? | | ?/ /\ \ ?| | ?- -| / /\
? | ?| ?/ ?____ ?\ | || | ?| || | / ?____ ?\ | |-- -| / ?____ ?
? || ?// ? ?_\ ?_/ ? _/ // ? ?_\ |___/ ?/_/ ? ?_\


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

Dang, what’s wrong with me :slight_smile: pmdoom?On 25 May 2010, at 19:04, Patrice Mandin <mandin.patrice at orange.fr> wrote:

Le Tue, 25 May 2010 18:52:03 +0100
Ian Norton <@Ian_Norton> a ?crit:

Hiya

I’d just like to say thank-you for STOS :smiley:

Sorry, but it’s not me who wrote STOS :).


Patrice Mandin
WWW: http://pmandin.atari.org/
Programmeur Linux, Atari
Sp?cialit?: D?veloppement, jeux

“who writes the code, decides”


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

Hello,

Dang, what’s wrong with me :slight_smile: pmdoom?

Le Tue, 25 May 2010 18:52:03 +0100
Ian Norton a ?crit:

Hiya

I’d just like to say thank-you for STOS :smiley:

Sorry, but it’s not me who wrote STOS :).

It’s Francois Lionet. See

http://www.clickteam.com/

if you want to know what he’s doing now…On May 26, 2010, at 12:16 AM, Ian Norton wrote:

On 25 May 2010, at 19:04, Patrice Mandin <mandin.patrice at orange.fr> wrote:


Patrice Mandin
WWW: http://pmandin.atari.org/
Programmeur Linux, Atari
Sp?cialit?: D?veloppement, jeux

“who writes the code, decides”


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

Original Message:

hi,

perhaps a separate release team could be made for SDL 1.2? ?Much like how
other projects have a separate team for older series. ?eg, the linux 2.4
series has separate release managers.

So Sam & Co can concentrate on perfecting SDL 1.3, and other people can make
bug fixes as needed to 1.2.

I also think it would be nice to have some release (every 6 or 12
months?) for SDL 1.2 once in a while; at least for bugfixes, or
enhancements for platforms not supported by SDL 1.3

Yes, I agree, SDL should definitely have regular releases, like every 6 months or so. Just like Ubuntu! Even though a new version is not complete (1.3 in this case), there should still be some regular bugfix release of the previous version (in this case 1.2).

Yeah, I’m sure that everyone would love to have regularly scheduled
releases of SDL. I’m also sure that everyone would love to see Sam
working full time, all 36 hours in the day, on getting 1.3 perfected
and released. And I love how you think of SDL and Ubuntu in the same
way. But, you need to do a little bit of a reality check before you
ask for things like this.

Ubuntu is a business with a full time salaried staff. In fact, The
project was started and is funded by a billionaire, Mark Shuttleworth.
This is a guy who made a whole lot of money off of the .com boom. So
much that he bought himself a ticket on a Soyuz and took a vacation on
the International Space Station. Then he founded Canonical which makes
Ubuntu. He and pays the costs for Ubuntu out of his own pocket while
trying to build it into another billion dollar business. BTW, he is
doing a damn good job of that.

On The Other Hand

SDL is a labor of love by a few software developers who work on it
whenever they can. Sam has a full time job as a game developer and he
has a wife and at least one very cute kid. That means that Sam often
has a choice of eating, sleeping, spending time with his family, or
working on SDL. Honestly, when I was in that stage of my life often
ate while driving to work so I could get a little extra sleep. There
is no full time staff. There is no billionaire bank rolling the
project. If the main developers are really really lucky they may some
day be able to make a comfortable living off of SDL, they could win
the lottery too. :slight_smile:

If you want to have regular releases of SDL, and you want Sam and his
cohorts to work full time on SDL, then all you have to do is dig into
your wallet and write a check for a few million dollars and maybe you
can get what you want. OTOH, Sam has a #$%_#&^$% good job and I would
want to have more that a paltry few million in my pocket before I
tried to hire him and the rest of the SDL developers. From a personal
point of view a few million might sound like a lot. From a business
point of view a few million is chump change. But, you know, there are
costs involved in producing SDL that are mostly covered out of Sam’s
pocket. If you want to help out, contribute SDL.

Bob Pendleton

P.S.

Seriously, do you have any idea how rude it is to ask that people to
do work for you with out offering to pay for that work? It just is not
done.On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Kikolani wrote:


?________ ? ?__ ? ? ?________ ?________ ? ?__ ? ? ?_____ ? ? ? __
|___ ?| ?/ ?\ ? ?|__ ||___ | ?/ ?\ ? ?| ?—\ ? ? / ?
? | ?| ? ?/ /\ \ ? ? ? ?| | ? ? ? | | ? / /\ \ ? | |-- -| ? / /\
? | ?| ? / / ?\ \ ? ? ? | | ? ? ? | | ?/ / ?\ \ ?| | ?- -| / / ?\
? | ?| ? / /
\ \ ? _ ? | | ? _ ? | | ?/ /\ \ ?| | ?- -| / /\
? | ?| ?/ ?____ ?\ | || | ?| || | / ?____ ?\ | |-- -| / ?____ ?
? || ?// ? ?_\ ?_/ ? _/ // ? ?_\ |___/ ?/_/ ? ?_\


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org


±----------------------------------------------------------

Bob wrote:

Seriously, do you have any idea how rude it is to ask that people to do work for you with out offering to pay for that work? It just is not done.

Seriously, do you have any idea how it is to barge into a thread without reading it, making a ton of assumptions, and then chew out everyone that posted in it? We aren’t demanding anything. We’re thinking about the possibility of having a separate SDL 1.2 team formed by the community so Sam doesn’t have to put any more time into it, and can concentrate on SDL 1.3 and his job.

Bob wrote:
Seriously, do you have any idea how rude it is to ask that people to do work for you with out offering to pay for that work? It just is not done.

Seriously, do you have any idea how it is to barge into a thread without reading it, making a ton of assumptions, and then chew out everyone that posted in it? We aren’t demanding anything. We’re thinking about the possibility of having a separate SDL 1.2 team formed by the community so Sam doesn’t have to put any more time into it, and can concentrate on SDL 1.3 and his job.


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

Yes exactly. We aren’t demanding anything, like you said… In the talk about a regular release a few posts before, we weren’t demanding a frequent regular release. We were just recommending a regular release, but we never said it should be frequent… And, we weren’t asking people to do work; we were just offering an idea.On May 27, 2010, at 21:22:02.00, BenoitRen wrote:



|___ | / \ |__ ||___ | / \ | —\ /
| | / /\ \ | | | | / /\ \ | |-- -| / /\
| | / / \ \ | | | | / / \ \ | | - -| / / \
| | / /
\ \ _ | | _ | | / /\ \ | | - -| / /\
| | / ____ \ | || | | || | / ____ \ | |-- -| / ____
|| // _\ _/ _/ // _\ |___/ /_/ _\

This plan sounds like people are going to leave Sam alone with his SDL 1.3.
Sam is busy man, but he would probably still be disappointed if SDL somehow
forked.
Is everyone feeling nostalgic? SDL 1.2 Forever?

It doesn’t look like NVIDIA,ATI or other company responsible for
graphics/sound share this nostalgia. Maintaining some separate SDL of the
ancients project isn’t going to bring us any closer to obsoleting the 1.2

Here are some reasons for stopping 1.2 development…

  • 1.3 has compatibility layer anyways
  • its old, everyone knows what it can do/can’t do
  • 1.3 will never be finished if you do
  • 1.2 already worksOn Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:22 AM, BenoitRen wrote:

We aren’t demanding anything. We’re thinking about the possibility of
having a separate SDL 1.2 team formed by the community so Sam doesn’t have
to put any more time into it, and can concentrate on SDL 1.3 and his job.


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

This plan sounds like people are going to leave Sam alone with his SDL 1.3. Sam is busy man, but he would probably still be disappointed if SDL somehow forked.
Is everyone feeling nostalgic? SDL 1.2 Forever?

It doesn’t look like NVIDIA,ATI or other company responsible for graphics/sound share this nostalgia. Maintaining some separate SDL of the ancients project isn’t going to bring us any closer to obsoleting the 1.2

Here are some reasons for stopping 1.2 development…
1.3 has compatibility layer anyways
its old, everyone knows what it can do/can’t do
1.3 will never be finished if you do
1.2 already works

We aren’t demanding anything. We’re thinking about the possibility of having a separate SDL 1.2 team formed by the community so Sam doesn’t have to put any more time into it, and can concentrate on SDL 1.3 and his job.


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

Well, yes it is true, but we weren’t saying anything like 1.2 forever. We just offered it until 1.3 is released. Actually, before your email I didn’t think about that… Good point!On May 27, 2010, at 23:12:16.00, Jeremiah wrote:

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:22 AM, BenoitRen wrote:



|___ | / \ |__ ||___ | / \ | —\ /
| | / /\ \ | | | | / /\ \ | |-- -| / /\
| | / / \ \ | | | | / / \ \ | | - -| / / \
| | / /
\ \ _ | | _ | | / /\ \ | | - -| / /\
| | / ____ \ | || | | || | / ____ \ | |-- -| / ____
|| // _\ _/ _/ // _\ |___/ /_/ _\

i don’t agree, sdl 1.2 should have ONE final release and that should
happen at sdl 1.3 release

Then how would bugfixes ever get into another release or distro?

having a library updated every 6 months will just make packaging and
distribution more difficult

I agree. It’s silly to have a release cycle for what has been
feature-frozen and is only subject to bugfixen.On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Vittorio G. <vitto.giova at yahoo.it> wrote:


http://codebad.com/

Jeremiah wrote:

Here are some reasons for stopping 1.2 development…

-1.3 has compatibility layer anyways

That compatibility layer doesn’t bring back all the platform support that 1.2 has, and the compatibility layer doesn’t always work well.

-its old, everyone knows what it can do/can’t do

Which makes it all the more attractive to use. How is this a reason for stopping development?

-1.3 will never be finished if you do

This is wrong. Having some people voluntarily work on 1.2 does not take away resources from 1.3. You talk as if everyone who wants to keep 1.2 alive would have developed 1.3 if (s)he couldn’t.

-1.2 already works

Well, yes. All the more reason to not drop it. Dropping something that works doesn’t make sense.

I’d certainly like to keep 1.2 around as it has support for many platforms, some of which will never be supported by 1.3.

What’s the urge to obsolete 1.2, anyway? This is open source. If someone wants to continue working on something, they can. That’s the beauty of it. Just like there are people who still update the Linux 2.4 kernel in spite of the availability of version 2.6.

That’s another that amazes me about linux. SDL is tiny by comparison.
A whole kernel of old stuff being maintained. Breaks my mind.

Why isn’t all the obsolete/old hardware that being ejected into a
black hole somewhere?
Isn’t that the only compelling need to keep old versions around?> ?Just like there are people who still update the Linux 2.4 kernel in spite of the availability of version 2.6.


SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

Why isn’t all the obsolete/old hardware that being ejected into a
black hole somewhere?
Isn’t that the only compelling need to keep old versions around?

Not at all. Old hardware is just one thing, although it is still around: I
have a machine that’s a Pentium-166 with 64MB RAM. Perfectly adequate for
what it’s doing, having been running in a dusty corner non-stop for 15
years, except when it got a disk upgrade from 200MB to 1.8GB, twice when
its power supply needed replacement due to fan failure and when its UPS
needed a new battery.

However, that’s not the main reason to keep old kernel and library
and tool versions around. There are two points that are more important:

  • To keep old, possibly closed-source or abandoned open-source SW running.
    You can not always change the code that you must run for operational
    purposes and while it is sometimes possible to use newer versions,
    change to a different package or buy an alternative, it is not always
    feasible.

  • Custom configurations. When you have a system that you have painstakenly
    configured to do some specialised, unorthodox thing you do not want to
    deploy new software so that you can start the whole reading the manuals,
    working out the bugs (we’re talking about the non-obvious, therefore
    less tested uses of the system) and setting up a working solution.

The above issues are multiplied when you have to run many machines and any
new SW also means re-training employees and the like. It costs money, and
a lot of it.

Unfortunately open-source code does not really give a damn about backward
compatibility. Indeed the idea is that you will constantly upgrade to the
latest and greatest. Now if you use your machine for work and you have to
maintain old projects (not hobby ones, but production code) then you have
to be able to recreate everything if a 6 or 7 year old deployed system
needs some change or minor addition. The problem is that it is not
guaranteed that the you can do that on the latest whizbang system.

There’s an incredible amount of interdependency between software versions,
library versions, kernel versions and tool versions. You want this new
code runnig? You have to upgrade to lib version X. Well, to compile that
you need gcc version Z, which, in turn must have library L installed, at
least version K. It depends on your kernel being at least 2.M.m, but then
you have to change all your firewall rules, and by the way the /proc
filesystem format is completely different, the mount system changed for
hotpluggable devices and of course you need to re-write any custom device
drivers you wrote, because the kernel internals are totally different. You
do all that, boot, and half of your production code does not work any
more, because the new libraries are simply not backward compatible and the
old libs are not compatible with the new system.

Well, at least that’s my experience. I’ve been using Linux since it was
distributed on 1.44M floppies for i386 and I yet to find a program with
any complexity that is more than 3-4 years old, and you download the
source, type .configure && make and get a perfectly working binary. Or one
that is brand new but you feed it the config files from 4 years ago and it
will run exactly as it ran when the config files were created.
Downloading a binary and expect it to run is just naive. I grew into the
habit to upgrade the system only if there’s absolutely no more support for
it and there’s some new SW that I really, really must use. I believe I am
not the only one.

Zoltan