On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Carl Eric Codere wrote:
> >> I can't test GGI. Maybe we should then remove all the GGI graph as it > >> doesn't work 100% correct? Then it'll never get debugged and fixed! > > > >I can't remember exactly who added the GGI version to CVS, but IIRC I > >just posted a first version back then and clearly noted that ggigraph is > >not finished and may never get finished by me. And currently it doesn't > >seem to make sense to support GGI anymore: The graph unit cannot really > >handle large bit depths, GGI doesn't support the 4 bpp modes, and > >finally in the future fpGFX will support GGI much better than ggigraph > >ver could. > >If you want to, then remove it, I will not continue ggigraph. > > > >------------Sebastian----------- > > > >I cannot find much progress in fpGFX 'cept some reference to its being > >'really beta'. > > Greetings, > Personally i would remove ggigraph support from the CVS > tree and replace with a unified (except for DOS) graph unit based on SDL... > I think this is the way to go.. The only problem is of course implementing > and testing this :(... This has been discussed before. SDL is not a standard library on most systems, and hence is not a suitable choice to base the graph unit on. The same goes for ggi, which is why it is a separate unit in the first place. Michael. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
