nanogui: ideology of flnx
Subject:
Re: [nanogui] ideology of flnx
From:
Jordan Crouse ####@####.####
Date:
13 Jul 2001 14:27:55 -0000
Message-Id: <01071308280201.11717@cosmic>
FLNX and FLTK are indeed the same animal (except for a few new widgets that
we have stuck in here and there).
It have been our intention to merge FLNX and FLTK. In fact, plans were in
place before the original FLTK developers left the project, and it languished
some what. FLTK is currently on 1.0.11, and the few bug fixes that we have
found to since 1.0.7 have already been added to the FLNX tree.
There is a FLTK 2.0 in the works (currently in CVS beta), and we are planning
(once again) to merge the two (but I am unsure of when that will happen).
So for now, we stay separate, but interchangeable (FLNX can run applications
built with FLTK 1.0.11, and vice versa).
If anyone wants to take a look, you get FLTK 2.0 instructions from:
http://www.oss3d.com/fltk2diff/
Jordan
On Thursday 12 July 2001 23:05, David T Eger mentioned:
> I was wondering as to the ideology of the FLTK / Nano-X port. It seems
> very curious - it was branched off of FLTK 1.0.7 (over a year ago) and it
> seems as though there has been no effort to keep it synced. Is this
> intentional? That is, is FLNX a distinctly different beast, or has the
> effort simply not been made to keep it current?
>
> On the one hand, if it were kept current, it is conceivable that nano-x
> could be one of the standard build options for FLTK. On the other hand, if
> FLNX is distinct, then why bother #ifdef'ing all of the NANO_X code, and
> not simply replace what exists with what it should be specifically for
> Nano-X?
>
> -David
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
