Hi
it seems that under FreeBSD things are called
sdl11-config instead of sdl-config
SDL11/SDL.h instead of SDL/SDL.h
why? are all versions of SDL affected?
thanks
leander
Hi
it seems that under FreeBSD things are called
sdl11-config instead of sdl-config
SDL11/SDL.h instead of SDL/SDL.h
why? are all versions of SDL affected?
thanks
leander
allow: post
Leander Seige wrote:
Hi
it seems that under FreeBSD things are called
sdl11-config instead of sdl-config
SDL11/SDL.h instead of SDL/SDL.hwhy? are all versions of SDL affected?
To allow older sdl-1.0 co-exist on the same machine with newer
sdl-1.2. The problem is that 1.0 and 1.2 API have some
incompatibilities, so that some software may still need 1.0 version.
-Maxim
Yes, and fbsd has already been told that they fucked up by making 1.1/1.2
a special case instead of 1.0 (which in turn breaks alot of apps) I suggest
not using fbsd’s port, or even using fbsd at all because of such retarded
behavior.On 06-Apr-2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
allow: post
Leander Seige wrote:
Hi
it seems that under FreeBSD things are called
sdl11-config instead of sdl-config
SDL11/SDL.h instead of SDL/SDL.hwhy? are all versions of SDL affected?
To allow older sdl-1.0 co-exist on the same machine with newer
sdl-1.2. The problem is that 1.0 and 1.2 API have some
incompatibilities, so that some software may still need 1.0 version.-Maxim
SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl
–
Patrick “Diablo-D3” McFarland || unknown at panax.com
"Computer games don’t affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we’d
all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to
repetitive electronic music." --Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989
I have to say it: This can only be described as massively unwise and a
general annoyance to all SDL developers, whether they use BSD or not.
The location of the SDL headers is insignificant; any code which depends
on the name of the directory in which they are provided is broken. It is
right to patch code which uses SDL/anything.h and tell the author that he
should use your patch.
The change to sdl-config, however, is problematic. Any autoconf-using SDL
program is going to depend on sdl-config existing and a great many of them
are likely going to depend on it being SDL1.2 or sometimes above depending
on whether certain bugs have been found and fixed since.
I suggest that the sdl-config convention on BSD be maintained, but
applied also to SDL 1.0. This will allow for either to be symlinked to
sdl-config as desired. This would be even more effective than the Debian
method, which allows for both runtimes to be installed, but not both devel
headers. One could easily make 1.2 the system default and drop a symlink
in ~/bin when the need arose to compile something using 1.0 that they’d
rather not port to 1.2… It is imperative that sdl-config NOT be SDL 1.0
for the majority of programs, however.On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 04:41:39PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
it seems that under FreeBSD things are called
sdl11-config instead of sdl-config
SDL11/SDL.h instead of SDL/SDL.hwhy? are all versions of SDL affected?
To allow older sdl-1.0 co-exist on the same machine with newer
sdl-1.2. The problem is that 1.0 and 1.2 API have some
incompatibilities, so that some software may still need 1.0 version.
–
Joseph Carter Certified free software nut
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20020406/657ef057/attachment.pgp
An abridged list of people you can get an OS from other than FreeBSD who
are guilty of retarded behavior, for your reference:
NetBSD
OpenBSD
Microsoft
Red Hat
Mandrake
Debian
Slackware
Caldera
Sun
SCO
SGI
IBM
Apple
Be
There are more. Many more. No, I suspect if one retarded decision were
all it took to disqualify an OS as a good choice, there would likely not
be any OSes left to choose from.On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 06:14:46PM -0500, Patrick McFarland wrote:
Yes, and fbsd has already been told that they fucked up by making 1.1/1.2
a special case instead of 1.0 (which in turn breaks alot of apps) I suggest
not using fbsd’s port, or even using fbsd at all because of such retarded
behavior.
–
Joseph Carter Hey, that’s MY freak show!
glQuakeIIIRendererMode(GL_TRUE)
ExMachina: isn’t that part of the extension which provides
glDriverBugs(GL_FALSE); ?
Knghtbrd: no, glDriverBugs() is part of EXT_help_me.
which also contains glMakeItWork(GL_PLEASE);
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20020406/c45371dc/attachment.pgp
Yeah… the FreeBSD ports of SDL suck. I never use them.
the other 99.9% of FreeBSD has been a positive experience for me.
Solution? Don’t use the port. The port conforms to FreeBSD "port"
standards this has nothing to do with conformance to the SDL way of
building things.
DaveOn Saturday, April 6, 2002, at 05:35 PM, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 04:41:39PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
it seems that under FreeBSD things are called
sdl11-config instead of sdl-config
SDL11/SDL.h instead of SDL/SDL.hwhy? are all versions of SDL affected?
To allow older sdl-1.0 co-exist on the same machine with newer
sdl-1.2. The problem is that 1.0 and 1.2 API have some
incompatibilities, so that some software may still need 1.0 version.I have to say it: This can only be described as massively unwise and a
general annoyance to all SDL developers, whether they use BSD or not.The location of the SDL headers is insignificant; any code which depends
on the name of the directory in which they are provided is broken. It
is
right to patch code which uses SDL/anything.h and tell the author that
he
should use your patch.The change to sdl-config, however, is problematic. Any autoconf-using
SDL
program is going to depend on sdl-config existing and a great many of
them
are likely going to depend on it being SDL1.2 or sometimes above
depending
on whether certain bugs have been found and fixed since.I suggest that the sdl-config convention on BSD be maintained, but
applied also to SDL 1.0. This will allow for either to be symlinked to
sdl-config as desired. This would be even more effective than the
Debian
method, which allows for both runtimes to be installed, but not both
devel
headers. One could easily make 1.2 the system default and drop a
symlink
in ~/bin when the need arose to compile something using 1.0 that they’d
rather not port to 1.2… It is imperative that sdl-config NOT be SDL
1.0
for the majority of programs, however.–
Joseph Carter Certified free software
nut
- Equivalent code is available from RSA Data Security, Inc.
- This code has been tested against that, and is equivalent,
- except that you don’t need to include two pages of legalese
- with every copy.
– public domain MD5 source
Do you know who maintains them? I might be able to convince him to fix up
what he’s doing is a bad idea and correct it in a manner that will satisfy
everyone to the best that it can be done. It could be done even easier if
FreeBSD had Debian’s update-alternatives, though I’m sure they’d say that
update-alternatives was a hack. Sure, but it’s an effective hack. =)On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:50:07PM -0600, David Leimbach wrote:
Yeah… the FreeBSD ports of SDL suck. I never use them.
the other 99.9% of FreeBSD has been a positive experience for me.
Solution? Don’t use the port. The port conforms to FreeBSD "port"
standards this has nothing to do with conformance to the SDL way of
building things.
–
Joseph Carter Hey, that’s MY freak show!
Granted, Win95’s look wasn’t all that new either - Apple tried to sue
Microsoft for copying the Macintosh UI / trash can icon, until Microsoft
pointed out that Apple got many of its Mac ideas (including the trash can
icon) from Xerox ParcPlace. Xerox is probably still wondering why
everyone is interested in their trash cans.
– Danny Thorpe, Borland Delphi R&R
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20020406/c658f7d4/attachment.pgp
sobomax at FreeBSD.org
I got that from freshports.org and searched for SDL.
DaveOn Saturday 06 April 2002 06:21 pm, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:50:07PM -0600, David Leimbach wrote:
Yeah… the FreeBSD ports of SDL suck. I never use them.
the other 99.9% of FreeBSD has been a positive experience for me.
Solution? Don’t use the port. The port conforms to FreeBSD "port"
standards this has nothing to do with conformance to the SDL way of
building things.Do you know who maintains them? I might be able to convince him to fix up
what he’s doing is a bad idea and correct it in a manner that will satisfy
everyone to the best that it can be done. It could be done even easier if
FreeBSD had Debian’s update-alternatives, though I’m sure they’d say that
update-alternatives was a hack. Sure, but it’s an effective hack. =)
Thanks, I’ve bookmarked the link for future reference. At some point I’m
planning to build a FreeBSD box.On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 07:01:31PM -0600, Dave Leimbach wrote:
sobomax at FreeBSD.org
I got that from freshports.org and searched for SDL.
–
Joseph Carter Intelligent backside at large
“I think that most debian developers are rather “strong willed” people
with a great degree of understanding and a high level of passion for what
they perceive as important in development of the debian system.”
–Bill Leach
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20020406/2f1d0b14/attachment.pgp
To allow older sdl-1.0 co-exist on the same machine with newer
sdl-1.2. The problem is that 1.0 and 1.2 API have some
incompatibilities, so that some software may still need 1.0 version.
Is there any software that still only uses SDL 1.0 and won’t work with
just a recompile of SDL 1.2?
See ya,
-Sam Lantinga, Software Engineer, Blizzard Entertainment
There might be some binary-only software. As for why you’d want to have
SDL 1.0’s development stuff laying around, I can’t say.On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 11:15:09PM -0800, Sam Lantinga wrote:
To allow older sdl-1.0 co-exist on the same machine with newer
sdl-1.2. The problem is that 1.0 and 1.2 API have some
incompatibilities, so that some software may still need 1.0 version.Is there any software that still only uses SDL 1.0 and won’t work with
just a recompile of SDL 1.2?
–
Joseph Carter Sanity is counterproductive
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20020406/7f332156/attachment.pgp
Hi.
I just downloaded the SDL_image and SDL_mixer OS X packages and noticed
the following:
The installer tells me it’d put them into ~/Library/Frameworks, where
they belong. However, after installing, they still weren’t there. After
a few tries (including rebooting into single user mode to find out if
there was something wrong with the Frameworks directory) I finally
noticed that the installer puts them into /Developer/Documentation.
I have no idea what causes this, just thought you should know.
Happy programming,
J. Fortmann
allow: post
David Leimbach wrote:
Yeah… the FreeBSD ports of SDL suck. I never use them.
the other 99.9% of FreeBSD has been a positive experience for me.
Solution? Don’t use the port. The port conforms to FreeBSD "port"
standards this has nothing to do with conformance to the SDL way of
building things.
Set SDL_CONFIG environment variable and you should be fine. Nothing
more is required for software conformant with SDL standards.
-Maxim>
Dave
On Saturday, April 6, 2002, at 05:35 PM, Joseph Carter wrote:On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 04:41:39PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
it seems that under FreeBSD things are called
sdl11-config instead of sdl-config
SDL11/SDL.h instead of SDL/SDL.hwhy? are all versions of SDL affected?
To allow older sdl-1.0 co-exist on the same machine with newer
sdl-1.2. The problem is that 1.0 and 1.2 API have some
incompatibilities, so that some software may still need 1.0 version.I have to say it: This can only be described as massively unwise and a
general annoyance to all SDL developers, whether they use BSD or not.The location of the SDL headers is insignificant; any code which depends
on the name of the directory in which they are provided is broken. It
is
right to patch code which uses SDL/anything.h and tell the author that
he
should use your patch.The change to sdl-config, however, is problematic. Any autoconf-using
SDL
program is going to depend on sdl-config existing and a great many of
them
are likely going to depend on it being SDL1.2 or sometimes above
depending
on whether certain bugs have been found and fixed since.I suggest that the sdl-config convention on BSD be maintained, but
applied also to SDL 1.0. This will allow for either to be symlinked to
sdl-config as desired. This would be even more effective than the
Debian
method, which allows for both runtimes to be installed, but not both
devel
headers. One could easily make 1.2 the system default and drop a
symlink
in ~/bin when the need arose to compile something using 1.0 that they’d
rather not port to 1.2… It is imperative that sdl-config NOT be SDL
1.0
for the majority of programs, however.–
Joseph Carter Certified free software
nut
- Equivalent code is available from RSA Data Security, Inc.
- This code has been tested against that, and is equivalent,
- except that you don’t need to include two pages of legalese
- with every copy.
– public domain MD5 source
allow: post
Patrick McFarland wrote:
Yes, and fbsd has already been told that they fucked up by making 1.1/1.2
a special case instead of 1.0 (which in turn breaks alot of apps) I suggest
not using fbsd’s port, or even using fbsd at all because of such retarded
behavior.
That’s your opinion anyway. GTK project already recognised importance
of allowing both old and new version be installed on the same machine
-Maxim>
On 06-Apr-2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
allow: post
Leander Seige wrote:
Hi
it seems that under FreeBSD things are called
sdl11-config instead of sdl-config
SDL11/SDL.h instead of SDL/SDL.hwhy? are all versions of SDL affected?
To allow older sdl-1.0 co-exist on the same machine with newer
sdl-1.2. The problem is that 1.0 and 1.2 API have some
incompatibilities, so that some software may still need 1.0 version.-Maxim
SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl–
Patrick “Diablo-D3” McFarland || unknown at panax.com
"Computer games don’t affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we’d
all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to
repetitive electronic music." --Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989
I don’t think anybody is disputing that multiple copies should be able to
be installed at once. The contention seems to be regarding sdl-config
specifically, which probably should point to the latest stable SDL, not
1.0. Personally I don’t see many reasons for 1.0 development stuff at
all anymore - the runtime is sufficient. Since you’ve elected to err on
the side of caution in that regard, I won’t question that decision.On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:23:41PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
That’s your opinion anyway. GTK project already recognised importance
of allowing both old and new version be installed on the same machine
- SDL is the next. The only extra thing developer needs to do on
FreeBSD is to add `export SDL_CONFIG=/usr/local/bin/sdl11-config’ into
his/her .profile.
–
Joseph Carter Now I’ll take over the world
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20020410/b1a58a02/attachment.pgp
allow: post
Joseph Carter wrote:
That’s your opinion anyway. GTK project already recognised importance
of allowing both old and new version be installed on the same machine
- SDL is the next. The only extra thing developer needs to do on
FreeBSD is to add `export SDL_CONFIG=/usr/local/bin/sdl11-config’ into
his/her .profile.I don’t think anybody is disputing that multiple copies should be able to
be installed at once. The contention seems to be regarding sdl-config
specifically, which probably should point to the latest stable SDL, not
1.0. Personally I don’t see many reasons for 1.0 development stuff at
all anymore - the runtime is sufficient. Since you’ve elected to err on
the side of caution in that regard, I won’t question that decision.
Ok, I decided to follow some of the sugestions from this thread. As a
result all FreeBSD packages still depending on SDL-1.0 were switched
over to use SDL-1.2 and SDL-1.0 package was buried in the Attic. In
addition, I’ve created additional package, which creates number of
symlinks to make SDL development environment similar to one on Linux.
I hope this would be sufficient to satisfy everybody.
Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks!
-Maxim> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:23:41PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Subject: cvs commit: ports/devel Makefile ports/devel/sdl_ldbad
Makefilepkg-comment pkg-descr pkg-plist
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: @Maxim_Sobolev (Maxim Sobolev)
To: cvs-committers at FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all at FreeBSD.ORG
sobomax 2002/04/17 11:28:30 PDT
Modified files:
devel Makefile
Added files:
devel/sdl_ldbad Makefile pkg-comment pkg-descr pkg-plist
Log:
Add sdl_ldbad 1.0, a SDL Linux Developer’s BandAiD. This package
when
combined with a FreeBSD SDL package creates development environment
more
similar to SDL development environment on other platforms (mostly
Linux).
Please note that this package is only for developer’s use - no
package should
use it as a dependency!
Created due to massive number of complais from the Linux camp that
local
FreeBSD hacks (sdl-config --> sdl11-config, include/SDL -->
include/SDL11
etc.) are making FreeBSD useless platform for SDL developer.
Revision Changes Path
1.799 +1 -0 ports/devel/Makefile
1.1 +34 -0 ports/devel/sdl_ldbad/Makefile (new)
1.1 +1 -0 ports/devel/sdl_ldbad/pkg-comment (new)
1.1 +8 -0 ports/devel/sdl_ldbad/pkg-descr (new)
1.1 +7 -0 ports/devel/sdl_ldbad/pkg-plist (new)
Subject: cvs commit: ports/devel Makefile CVSROOT modules
ports/devel/sdl10Makefile distinfo pkg-comment pkg-descr
pkg-plistports/devel/sdl10/files patch-ac patch-ae patch-af
patch-anpatch-ao
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: @Maxim_Sobolev (Maxim Sobolev)
To: cvs-committers at FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all at FreeBSD.ORG
sobomax 2002/04/17 11:02:22 PDT
Modified files:
devel Makefile
. modules
Removed files:
devel/sdl10 Makefile distinfo pkg-comment pkg-descr
pkg-plist
devel/sdl10/files patch-ac patch-ae patch-af patch-an
patch-ao
Log:
Deorbit devel/sdl10 - it has been superseded by devel/sdl12.
Burn baby, burn!
Revision Changes Path
1.4989 +0 -1 CVSROOT/modules
1.798 +0 -1 ports/devel/Makefile
1.26 +0 -49 ports/devel/sdl10/Makefile (dead)
1.6 +0 -1 ports/devel/sdl10/distinfo (dead)
1.9 +0 -55 ports/devel/sdl10/files/patch-ac (dead)
1.2 +0 -82 ports/devel/sdl10/files/patch-ae (dead)
1.2 +0 -45 ports/devel/sdl10/files/patch-af (dead)
1.3 +0 -147 ports/devel/sdl10/files/patch-an (dead)
1.3 +0 -20 ports/devel/sdl10/files/patch-ao (dead)
1.2 +0 -1 ports/devel/sdl10/pkg-comment (dead)
1.3 +0 -7 ports/devel/sdl10/pkg-descr (dead)
1.11 +0 -106 ports/devel/sdl10/pkg-plist (dead)
Thanks, this will make life in #SDL and #OpenGL a little more sane at
times - fewer people coming in and complaining that sdl-config wasn’t
found, etc. ;)On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 09:39:22PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
I don’t think anybody is disputing that multiple copies should be able to
be installed at once. The contention seems to be regarding sdl-config
specifically, which probably should point to the latest stable SDL, not
1.0. Personally I don’t see many reasons for 1.0 development stuff at
all anymore - the runtime is sufficient. Since you’ve elected to err on
the side of caution in that regard, I won’t question that decision.Ok, I decided to follow some of the sugestions from this thread. As a
result all FreeBSD packages still depending on SDL-1.0 were switched
over to use SDL-1.2 and SDL-1.0 package was buried in the Attic. In
addition, I’ve created additional package, which creates number of
symlinks to make SDL development environment similar to one on Linux.
I hope this would be sufficient to satisfy everybody.
–
Joseph Carter Here we go again
it’s 6am. I have been up 24 hours
Wake me up and risk life and limb.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20020417/9b7e5810/attachment.pgp
hi
thanks for all the answers, now the shell script
is looking for different named sdl*-configs
bye
leander
You don’t need to do that - just set the environment variable. Document
this and support it, it’s the normal way this is done.On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 02:05:59PM +0200, Leander Seige wrote:
thanks for all the answers, now the shell script
is looking for different named sdl*-configs
–
Joseph Carter The guy with a rocket launcher
<ahzz_> i figured 17G oughta be enough.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20020420/0dd761f3/attachment.pgp
You don’t need to do that - just set the environment variable. Document
this and support it, it’s the normal way this is done.
the shell script compiles my program on the user’s computer
(as long as i don’t have an autoconf installation)
so this is much more comfortable for the user than finding the
sdl*-config and setting the variable.
regards
Leander