On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 10:33:01 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 at 08:50:30 +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 17:24:03 +0100, Simon McVittie
> > wrote:
> > > SDL 1.2 was superseded by SDL 2 several years ago, and no longer
> > > receives upstream maintenance or
On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 at 08:50:30 +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 17:24:03 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > SDL 1.2 was superseded by SDL 2 several years ago, and no longer receives
> > upstream maintenance or releases. Maintained software that uses SDL 1.2
> > should be ported to S
Hi Simon,
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 17:24:03 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> SDL 1.2 was superseded by SDL 2 several years ago, and no longer receives
> upstream maintenance or releases. Maintained software that uses SDL 1.2
> should be ported to SDL 2.
Given the time scales involved, is it worth waiti
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 at 11:10:41 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-06-12 at 17:24 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > SDL 1.2 was superseded by SDL 2 several years ago, and no longer receives
> > upstream maintenance or releases. Maintained software that uses SDL 1.2
> > should be ported to SDL 2.
On Mon, 2023-06-12 at 17:24 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> SDL 1.2 was superseded by SDL 2 several years ago, and no longer receives
> upstream maintenance or releases. Maintained software that uses SDL 1.2
> should be ported to SDL 2.
It was pointed out to me on IRC that some SDL 1.2 extension l
5 matches
Mail list logo
