[mike@easysw.com: Re: FLTK2-based Dillo for Debian installer]
Hi there, A follow-up of FLTK2-based Dillo for Debian installer. -- Cheers Jorge.-
<snip>
Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
Hi Michael,
I just received this request in our mailing list. The keypoint is how near/far is FLTK2 from having DirectFB rendering support. If some Debian developers help with the task, what's your estimation?
No work has been done.
That said, I believe Cairo offers DirectFB support, and FLTK 2 can use Cairo (and probably will depend on it in the future), so I think it won't take a whole lot to add the DirectFB glue that is needed.
The best place for the Debian folks to go is fltk.org and post to the fltk.development forum. I personally am too busy right now to do anything with FLTK... :(
Hi I know a little about FLTK as, while developing the GTK frontend to the debian-installer, i also investigated about using FLTK+KDrive instead of GTK+DFB (i eventually preferred GTKDFB as the d-i components are written in plain ANSI C and some GTK code and GTKDFB packages already existed). Unfortunately, i don't know FLTK or DFB well enough to write a DFB backend: anyway, cairo has a DFB backend, written by the actual maintainer of GTK's DFB backend, Mike Emmel. My interest for Dillo being ported to GTK+ is that the d-i has to be kept as small as possible (currently the miniiso is ~9 megs, including intl fonts) and apps inside it should need no unmet dependencies (and dillo depends on GTK only, which is already packaged in its DFB version). Yesterday i started porting Dillo to GTK+ but it seems now clear to me that dillo is definitely moving away from GTK in favour of FLTK and there is no going back, right? So, i guess it makes little sense porting Dillo to GTK+, as this would only generate, in the best case just an non-mainline fork used in the d-i only, right? :( friendly Attilio
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 06:19:56PM +0100, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:
<snip>
Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
Hi Michael,
I just received this request in our mailing list. The keypoint is how near/far is FLTK2 from having DirectFB rendering support. If some Debian developers help with the task, what's your estimation?
No work has been done.
That said, I believe Cairo offers DirectFB support, and FLTK 2 can use Cairo (and probably will depend on it in the future), so I think it won't take a whole lot to add the DirectFB glue that is needed.
The best place for the Debian folks to go is fltk.org and post to the fltk.development forum. I personally am too busy right now to do anything with FLTK... :(
Hi
I know a little about FLTK as, while developing the GTK frontend to the debian-installer, i also investigated about using FLTK+KDrive instead of GTK+DFB (i eventually preferred GTKDFB as the d-i components are written in plain ANSI C and some GTK code and GTKDFB packages already existed). Unfortunately, i don't know FLTK or DFB well enough to write a DFB backend: anyway, cairo has a DFB backend, written by the actual maintainer of GTK's DFB backend, Mike Emmel. My interest for Dillo being ported to GTK+ is that the d-i has to be kept as small as possible (currently the miniiso is ~9 megs, including intl fonts) and apps inside it should need no unmet dependencies (and dillo depends on GTK only, which is already packaged in its DFB version). Yesterday i started porting Dillo to GTK+ but it seems now clear to me that dillo is definitely moving away from GTK in favour of FLTK and there is no going back, right?
Right, but the overhead of statically linking FLTK2 is near 300KB. Not a show stopper at all.
So, i guess it makes little sense porting Dillo to GTK+, as this would only generate, in the best case just an non-mainline fork used in the d-i only, right? :(
Right. Really, the statically linked FLTK2 binary is a good solution. Note: Michael was kind enough to answer me quickly, but please don't CC' him as he has no time currently to work on this. Bill and Dejan are in the FLTK devel forum. -- Cheers Jorge.-
participants (2)
-
Attilio Fiandrotti -
Jorge Arellano Cid