Absolutely agree. It’s a major deviation from the old API, not just in
terms of function prototypes but also in concepts (multiple windows, for
example). While 1.2 and 1.3 both cater for the same sort of needs, they
are rather different animals. You can’t just install 1.3, change a few
ints to unsigned or long in your code, recompile and run. That’s what I’d
expect from an x.a -> x.b change; bugfixes, a couple of new features, but
nothing seriously breaking backward compatibility.
Well, you might be able to do just that with some programs, using
SDL_compat.h! 
Even so, with some of the changes to the SDL_Surface struct, and the
definition of SDL_Rect, a lot of old code just won’t work unmodified.>----- Original Message ----
From: Pierre Phaneuf
Subject: Re: [SDL] SDL 1.3!
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 6:23 PM, wrote:
Absolutely agree. It’s a major deviation from the old API, not just in
terms of function prototypes but also in concepts (multiple windows, for
example). While 1.2 and 1.3 both cater for the same sort of needs, they
are rather different animals. You can’t just install 1.3, change a few
ints to unsigned or long in your code, recompile and run. That’s what I’d
expect from an x.a -> x.b change; bugfixes, a couple of new features, but
nothing seriously breaking backward compatibility.
Well, you might be able to do just that with some programs, using
SDL_compat.h!
Even so, with some of the changes to the SDL_Surface struct, and the
definition of SDL_Rect, a lot of old code just won’t work unmodified.
I’m the current maintainer of SDL for OpenBSD’s ports/packages system.
out of curiousity, I installed an SDL-1.3 snapshot and then tried to
build a few other applications that use SDL. the majority didn’t
build. some were not trivial to fix. considering there are about 60
applications that use SDL in OpenBSD’s ports tree, I just gave up.
many of these applications are old games that have not seen active
development in years. as such, it’s likely that it will fall on me,
as the SDL maintainer, to make these work with a new version of SDL.
or more likely, I won’t update SDL, or will have to maintain two
versions of SDL and make sure they don’t conflict, which I’m not
really looking forward to.On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 03:33:55PM -0700, Mason Wheeler wrote:
----- Original Message ----
From: Pierre Phaneuf
Subject: Re: [SDL] SDL 1.3!
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 6:23 PM, wrote:
–
@Jacob_Meuser
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
You’ll be able to install SDL 1.3 and 1.2 on the same machine. Details
still to be worked out. :)On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Jacob Meuser wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 03:33:55PM -0700, Mason Wheeler wrote:
----- Original Message ----
From: Pierre Phaneuf
Subject: Re: [SDL] SDL 1.3!
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 6:23 PM, wrote:
Absolutely agree. It’s a major deviation from the old API, not just in
terms of function prototypes but also in concepts (multiple windows,
for
example). While 1.2 and 1.3 both cater for the same sort of needs,
they
are rather different animals. You can’t just install 1.3, change a few
ints to unsigned or long in your code, recompile and run. That’s what
I’d
expect from an x.a -> x.b change; bugfixes, a couple of new features,
but
nothing seriously breaking backward compatibility.
Well, you might be able to do just that with some programs, using
SDL_compat.h!
Even so, with some of the changes to the SDL_Surface struct, and the
definition of SDL_Rect, a lot of old code just won’t work unmodified.
I’m the current maintainer of SDL for OpenBSD’s ports/packages system.
out of curiousity, I installed an SDL-1.3 snapshot and then tried to
build a few other applications that use SDL. the majority didn’t
build. some were not trivial to fix. considering there are about 60
applications that use SDL in OpenBSD’s ports tree, I just gave up.
many of these applications are old games that have not seen active
development in years. as such, it’s likely that it will fall on me,
as the SDL maintainer, to make these work with a new version of SDL.
or more likely, I won’t update SDL, or will have to maintain two
versions of SDL and make sure they don’t conflict, which I’m not
really looking forward to.
–
jakemsr at sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
I kinda like e^(i pi) + 1, which is of course nothing
JeffOn Tuesday 26 May 2009 11:45, Patryk Bratkowski wrote:
Only thing I have to say on the subject, is I don’t care what they call it,
as long as it’s good.
Whether they call it 1.3, 2.0 or pi/e is really irrelevent.