Require only SDL2.0.2, not 2.0.3 about sdl2 HOT 7 CLOSED

Thanks! I've reduced the lower bound with ccf61b7. Can you test and see if it works for you?

from sdl2.

But 2.0.4 is out now - do we want that?

from sdl2.

@ocharles Yes, once we have bindings to the new functionality in SDL2 2.0.4.

from sdl2.

Yes, the patch works, thanks. Regarding 2.0.4: It would be great if the sdl2 package will still support older versions, otherwise you'll probably lose tons of users who probably aren't even interested in the brand-new stuff. (Yes, installing SDL2 from source is not that hard, but nevertheless, every additional step will scare away a significant fraction of potential users.) I can see basically 2 options:

• Introduce a cabal flag with manual: False (the default) for the new stuff, and this flags guards the pkgconfig-depends: version. If I see this correctly, cabal should first try to build with one version, then the other.
• Switch to dynamic binding of the API entries, just like OpenGLRaw or gl. This is the most flexible approach and makes it e.g. even possible to build the full package on machines with older libraries and avoids the need for a flag.

from sdl2.

Is it possible to just statically compile sdl2 into this library?

from sdl2.

Static linking on Linux/Mac OS X should be possible (don't know about Windows), but I wouldn't really recommend it. You get all the common problems, like not being able to update the linked-in library alone, perhaps needing some patches from distros to make them work there, getting lots of failed builds because the native library won't compile or doesn't work correctly, license problems, etc. etc. Basically you suddenly maintain/package two projects instead of one. IMHO all that work is better spent into e.g. making the SDL binding more dynamic by using dlopen and friends to access whatever is usable on the given platform. Just my 2c... 😉

from sdl2.

Fixed by ccf61b7

from sdl2.