On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 12:34:45PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > IMHO we should design with the following goal in mind:
> > "how would you architect xmame so that it could fit in an embedded PC with
> > 16mb of ram and still support the widest array of
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 12:34:45PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> IMHO we should design with the following goal in mind:
>
> "how would you architect xmame so that it could fit in an embedded PC with
> 16mb of ram and still support the widest array of games possible?"
That's an utterly uninteresting
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Nicos Panayides wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 00:48, smf wrote:
> > However I don't believe this achieves what the original suggestion was
> > attempting to. It won't reduce memory footprint and it won't allow you to
> > download a new driver module.
> The original suggestion w
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 00:48, smf wrote:
> However I don't believe this achieves what the original suggestion was
> attempting to. It won't reduce memory footprint and it won't allow you to
> download a new driver module.
>
The original suggestion was about dynamic modules for everything, but as
m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 09 Dec 2003 2:20 am, Simon Roby wrote:
> I guess you are right, I didn't know what the hell I was talking about.
> (puts foot in mouth)
Heh, and there you are telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about :)
Anyways, as previously s
> You missed the point. Providing a single binary package for users of all
> video/sound options is a waste. If all I want is Xv and OSS, the package
> dependencies will still want me to install kde, SDL, alsa, etc.
No, you missed my point. I was agreeing with you. I'll rephrase... If you
can't bu
