[Scummvm-devel] Re: Sourcecode for ScummVM / RiscOS
max at quendi.de
Thu Oct 2 12:45:05 CEST 2003
Am Donnerstag, 02.10.03 um 21:28 Uhr schrieb David McEwen:
>> Hm, still nothing received ?! Maybe the mail is to big and your
>> provider failed to deliver it?
> My ISP does zero filtering and mails much larger have gone through.
> admittedly I haven't tried recently. I hve attached it to this reply
> and CC'd
> to my work address (although that now has spam filtering on the
> server) - so
> fingers crossed it will work.
This time I got the attachment. Thanks!
>> Understood. Of course we understand that you have other things to do,
>> and work/job certainly has a much higher priority, so some delay is no
>> problem.... However please also understand our point of view, which is
>> that we asked you about this 6 months ago and nothing happened from
>> your part since then, however you *did* find the time to release a
>> 0.5.0 binary. And I don't think uploading some source tar ball would
>> much harder... *cough*. Ah well, whatever, my goal is to see the
>> mods released to the public and ideally integrated into the main
>> distro, to the benefit of all. Certainly nothing to be gained in doing
>> petty talks about who is responsible for what :-)
> The 0.5.0 binary was released over a year and a half ago IIRC. I have
> less free time now than I did then.
Ah! Sorry I see now it says "10/03/02" next to it... the thing is,
ScummVM actually only reached version 0.5.1 recently... so I guess you
just used a different naming scheme altogether :-)
> However I agree that its all meaningless
> now. It is my intention to get it integrated, I am very interested in
> project just have little time to focus on anything bar work atm
>>> The code isn't really useful for any fresh version as it would be
>>> better to
>>> use the SDL port (which wasn't available at the time).
>> Ah OK, so SDL now is available for RiscOS. Of course the question is:
>> is it any good? I.e. is the port usable for ScummVM?
> It should be. There was an older port that was a bit ropey, but the
> one seems good enough to use. Although without trying it with ScummVM
> just gueesing - as the port doesn't provide all the SDL features.
>> For us both are fine. If you can get along well by using the SDL
>> backend, the much the better. If a RiscOS specific backend is the way
>> to go, just fine to us as well.
> Exactly my thoughts the fewer platform specific changes the happier
> I'll be.
> I do think only the sound should be an issue (or maybe supporting older
> hardware - speed wise).
We'd be happy to work with you on this.
More information about the Scummvm-devel