[lsb-discuss] Looking at 4.0 work

Sam Hart criswellious at gmail.com
Thu Feb 14 10:20:30 PST 2008


On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Wichmann, Mats D
<mats.d.wichmann at intel.com> wrote:
> Sam Hart wrote:
<snip>
> > So, my two cents if these become desired/wanted for inclusion in the
>  > LSB would be that libSDL would be okay, but SDL_mixer and SDL_image
>  > may not be.
>
>  although lower on the usage chart, these others also showed up:
>
>  libSDL_Pango, libSDL_gfx, libSDL_net, libSDL_sound, libSDL_ttf
>
>  any comments there?

Naturally :-)

SDL_net and SDL_ttf were also originally intended to be samples (See
descriptions http://www.libsdl.org/projects/SDL_net/,
http://www.libsdl.org/projects/SDL_ttf/), however, they both came out
after SDL_mixer and SDL_image had already been widely used and
accepted, so I always got the impression they were generally accepted
as SDL canon. Both *should* have a lot fewer requirements than
SDL_mixer and SDL_image, but they aren't used as much as their
siblings.

SDL_sound (http://icculus.org/SDL_sound/) was originally proposed as
an alternative to SDL_mixer
(http://www.devolution.com/pipermail/sdl/2001-September/038543.html).
IIRC, it had more functionality than SDL_mixer and was intended to be
the standard SDL higher-level sound library whereas mixer was always
just a sample library. However, I don't think it ever caught on
completely. Personally, I could count on SDL_mixer being present in
the systems I wrote apps for, so I just used it over the superior
SDL_sound. I think a lot of people wound up doing the same. SDL_sound
works, but doesn't look like it has much active development.

SDL_gfx (http://www.ferzkopp.net/joomla/content/view/19/14/) was a
higher level graphic effects library (understand, SDL is still pretty
"low-level" in that it just provides basic graphics/audio features- it
doesn't even provide graphic primitives). I never used it much beyond
simple tests primarily because I couldn't rely on it being present in
the distros I supported. That being said, looking at what applications
use it today, that may be a different story.

SDL_Pango is new to me. It obviously came out after I stopped
participating in SDL development. Looking at the project page
(http://sdlpango.sourceforge.net/) I *really* like the idea of
SDL_pango (SDL_ttf always made i18n difficult), but I don't know
enough about the project to say anything more about it.

Now all this being said, most of the SDL_* libraries were under the
LGPL for the expressed purpose of making them easily bundlable with
other applications. Back when Loki existed and ported games to Linux,
they would ship statically compiled versions of many of them (SDL_net
was a library that began its life because one of the games had
networked multiplayer support, IIRC). So, realistically, not including
an SDL_* lib in the LSB shouldn't prevent ISVs from using them anyway
and shipping them with their products.

So my two cents: _net and _ttf fit about as well as _mixer and _image
do in the LSB, _sound I probably wouldn't recommend, _gfx and _Pango I
don't know enough modern data about to say one way or the other.



More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list