nanogui: Microwindow+GTK or FLTK??


Previous by date: 19 May 2009 02:01:30 -0000 Re: Microwindow+GTK or FLTK??, Greg Haerr
Next by date: 19 May 2009 02:01:30 -0000 Re: Microwindow+GTK or FLTK??, Ricardo Jasinski
Previous in thread: 19 May 2009 02:01:30 -0000 Re: Microwindow+GTK or FLTK??, Greg Haerr
Next in thread: 19 May 2009 02:01:30 -0000 Re: Microwindow+GTK or FLTK??, Ricardo Jasinski

Subject: Re: [nanogui] Re: Microwindow+GTK or FLTK??
From: "Aaron J. Grier" ####@####.####
Date: 19 May 2009 02:01:30 -0000
Message-Id: <20090519020120.GK500@arwen.poofy.goof.com>

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 07:26:16PM -0600, Greg Haerr wrote:
> Aaron - No, the XtoNX.h header was used for very early versions of
> NXLIB, which required recompilation of X11 libraries and binaries.
> The current NXLIB works by replacing libX11.so and does not require
> any re-compilation of the application.
> 
> This has been tested for FLTK v1.x which works great.  It has also
> been tested with GTK, but there may be more work to be done in some
> cases.  Thus, I would suggest using FLTK for use with nano-X.  If the
> application runs on X11, using FLTK with NXLIB should allow it to port
> unmodified to nano-X.

I think this is the second time I've made this mistake.  (=

does nano-X provide X headers proper, or are these "borrowed" from the
host installation?

-- 
  Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | ####@####.####

Previous by date: 19 May 2009 02:01:30 -0000 Re: Microwindow+GTK or FLTK??, Greg Haerr
Next by date: 19 May 2009 02:01:30 -0000 Re: Microwindow+GTK or FLTK??, Ricardo Jasinski
Previous in thread: 19 May 2009 02:01:30 -0000 Re: Microwindow+GTK or FLTK??, Greg Haerr
Next in thread: 19 May 2009 02:01:30 -0000 Re: Microwindow+GTK or FLTK??, Ricardo Jasinski


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.