Re: [TuxKart-devel] Some notes

[Ricardo C. <ri...@ae...>]

Em Ter=E7a, 3 de Agosto de 2004 05:27, o Pascal Giard escreveu:
> >  James enumerated 5 reasons for the use of SDL. My point was just
> > that it is stupid to say that it should be used because everyone has
> > it.
>
> To some's opinion, SDL just answer various needs in order to improve
> tuxkart. To Steve's point of view, it's possible to improve tuxkart witho=
ut
> SDL since some of those "needs" aren't that important.
>
> I can not comment on many issues, but i think it would be nice to be able
> to play fullscreen in 320x240 [on slow PCs].
>
 Yes, it is nice and I maybe necessary to have full screen support for=20
different resolutions.
 But not to make it running in slow PCs, because I don't think you can run=
=20
TuxKart with software rendering and a crap cpu (even in a fast one it would=
=20
be damn slow).
 The need for it is for cheap guys like myself that buy the bottom line of=
=20
accelerated video cards and use a desktop resolution of 1280x1024.

> >  Anyway, you say dependencies is not a =ABbad thing=BB. You do have to
> > agree, that even if it is in a very small degree, it is not really
> > that good. Dependencies mean bigger binaries, might have portability
> > problems and the ask for more maintenance.
>
> Bigger binairies, as long as the binairies are staticly linked.
> I agree that staticly linked binairies are usually bigger because the libs
> they depend on have more features than needed.
>
> IMHO, the issue here is that Steve believes we can achieve everything we
> need with Plib.
>
> Still, i think SDL isn't a portability issue as libsdl is available in
> debian for 11 architectures=B9.
>
> As to either it needs more maintenance or not, it surely needs more.
> But some suggested (previously on this list) that someone else than Steve
> would maintain the non-Plib stuff. I might have misunderstood the msg
> behind: "If you can maintain the PLIB side of those IFDEFS then everybody
> will be happy.".
>
 First of all, I said it was in a small degree. And no, portability doesn't=
=20
only dependend from the library, but from the use one makes of it.

Cheers,
 Ricardo

=2D-=20
modem, adj.:
	Up-to-date, new-fangled, as in "Thoroughly Modem Millie."  An
	unfortunate byproduct of kerning.

	[That's sic!]