Re: [GtkGLExt] API changes for the next major gtkglext release (glext)

[Arc Riley <ArcRiley pysoy org>]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Mukund Sivaraman <muks banu com> wrote:

You keep saying GLEW is broken. Can you elaborate on the problems you
are facing with it apart from the .pc file and a missing configure
script, which makes gtkglext more appealing?

The .pc is missing and it does not build with mingw on window.  The only reason we need GLEW is for windows, given that both Quartz and Mesa include full extension headers (etc), and therefore it does not do what we need.

The gtkglext ext wrappers API is poor, when compared to GLee/GLEW.

That is your opinion.  Can you provide any evidence to back this up?

It's a wrapper.  It wraps extensions.  Unless you are saying "it's not as complete as.." I do not understand how you have reached this conclusion.
 

Even if we were to suddenly change our minds, we'd still not keep the
wrapper API as-is in the next major release, which means that your
program would still break.

So what you are saying is that gtkglext is an unstable dependency and should not be used by anyone right now.

Understood.