nanogui: ideology of flnx


Previous by date: 16 Jul 2001 02:50:39 -0000 The NanoX/eCos patch against FLNX-0.16, I-Jui Sung
Next by date: 16 Jul 2001 02:50:39 -0000 Re: The NanoX/eCos patch against FLNX-0.16, Alex Holden
Previous in thread: 16 Jul 2001 02:50:39 -0000 Re: ideology of flnx, Greg Haerr
Next in thread:

Subject: Re: [nanogui] ideology of flnx
From: "chen qingshan" ####@####.####
Date: 16 Jul 2001 02:50:39 -0000
Message-Id: <F149eX8KShPdHfKsp3M00018c9e@hotmail.com>

I found an answer: upgrade the bootldr from 2.9.5 to 2.14.5,which support 
backlight.
Regrads
Chen


>From: "Greg Haerr" ####@####.####
>Reply-To: "Greg Haerr" ####@####.####
>To: ####@####.#### "David T Eger" ####@####.####
>CC: "Jason Kingan" ####@####.####
>Subject: Re: [nanogui] ideology of flnx
>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:03:35 -0600
>
>: 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?
>
>We have planned from the beginning to have the Nano-X port of
>FLTK go back to the FLTK maintainers for permanent inclusion.
>However, since we're a few revs behind (and they're actually at
>2.x now), we need to upgrade before they'll likely accept it.
>We're going to be starting a project soon where we'll be moving to
>the latest 2.x version of FLTK, and make it work with Nano-X,
>with resubmission to fltk.org.
>
>:
>: 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?
>
>I very much dislike the underchassis of FLTK, with all of it's crude
>multiple #ifdefs for win32, X and now, nano-X.  But that's likely to
>remain, since that's the way the FLTK folks wrote it, and they've kept
>that approach in 2.x.
>
>Finally, the current FLNX underchassis is a bit messy, since it was
>written over a year ago, just when Nano-X was becoming actually
>capable of running real graphics programs.  This will be cleaned up
>in the 2.x release.
>
>Regards,
>
>Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
>For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.


Previous by date: 16 Jul 2001 02:50:39 -0000 The NanoX/eCos patch against FLNX-0.16, I-Jui Sung
Next by date: 16 Jul 2001 02:50:39 -0000 Re: The NanoX/eCos patch against FLNX-0.16, Alex Holden
Previous in thread: 16 Jul 2001 02:50:39 -0000 Re: ideology of flnx, Greg Haerr
Next in thread:


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.