| Re: [AD] Is there a licensing reason why PNG isn't built-in to Allegro? |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
- To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [AD] Is there a licensing reason why PNG isn't built-in to Allegro?
- From: Chris <chris.kcat@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:01:13 -0800
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=CaiNpgN4qWOuHzk4IKoTGDZYw3mp+UsTFydm2V8EITEV9opVhwGpsKsqjnG4SVhlIANZ/iu+GRTGT06auyohckEA5KVtIFjQBB7bi+YAIawouAAZsIizPPUsGsUC+knMd+L8guxIFkgpAeVhx7jJGNO7Hb+HDccdzNG/oJ9OASw=
On Monday 27 March 2006 14:15, Evert Glebbeek wrote:
> This is easy to do on *nix: simply have configure check for zlib and libpng
> and compile Allegro with png support if both are present. Easy.
> The problem is that this type of dependency checking is a pain in the rear
> on Windows.
> As for including libpng and zlib in the default Allegro distribution... I'm
> still not a fan of that because if I have them installed it feels
> redundant to have Allegro install and build them again - especially if it
> staticlinks them and I want to use the shared objects. Of course,
> configure can take care of all that, so again, *nix would not be a
> problem.
This is part of the reason Allegro's trying to move away from Make, isn't it?
So you can have a build environment that's capable of testing the
availability of things outside of *nix?