Allegro 4.2.1 has been released! You can download the source packages here.

Most exciting changes:

• Added a new translucent font type.

• New list_config_sections and list_config_entries functions.

• Many fixes for Intel Macs, including support for univeral binaries.

• stretch_blit can now be HW accelerated with the DirectX driver.

A larger list is available at the Allegro homepage

AllegroGL 0.4.0 RC7 has also been released. You can download the source here. This release supports several more OpenGL extensions, and also features more intelligent refresh rate selection in the Windows driver. The complete list of changes is here.

Donate! The Allegro project is now accepting donations through SourceForge, meaning that all who have wanted to give back to Allegro in the past will be able to do so now. I, CGamesPlay, have been appointed treasurer. Presently, we are discussing potential uses for the donated funds, but have not reached any conclusion. Ideas include:

• Bounties/Payment for coding tasks

• Buying hardware or software to support development

• Giving out contest prizes

• Holding an Allegro conference

• Purchasing a domain name for the Allegro web site

You can donate through the SourceForge interface:

I will donate, but not since something clear is established for what you will do with the money.

There should be some certain targets for donations. E.g, get $100 for domain. Once the target is reached the money is spent and a new target is set.

good show everyone. Sounds like some really useful fixes in this version for a change

I already have code workarounds for the blitting/sprite errors so it'll be good to get rid of all my hacks

And why has there been no official announcement?

this is official

I guess gnolam refers to the not-yet-existing article on the front page of allegro.cc - I would have expected to see a new version there in thick letters...

Bingo.
Also, one would expect a thread called something like "Allegro 4.2.1 released" instead of the vague "News in the Allegro Community". And possibly a mention of the (tar.bz2'd ) RC of AllegroGL on the AllegroGL page.

I'll do an Allegro version x.y.z released thread again next time.

Anyway, tea time now!

Haha, well I'm new at making announcements. Really, the thread started as a lobby for donations, but Elias noted that nobody had announced 4.2.1 or 0.4 RC 7.

Hooray! But one thing: the OS X framework includes only a tiny subset of the headers (complete list: alosxcfg.h, astdint.h, alosx.h, aintosx.h, allegro.h, osxalleg.h, aintunix.h, alplatf.h - everything from the allegro subdirectory seems to be missing) with the result that it is still impossible to use Allegro without doing a UNIX-style install.

EDIT: oh, I see Allegro still doesn't support proper-OS X Framework use, but still insists on littering /usr/local/lib and other directories that UNIX people love — in particular it seems to still want to do a static link to get a symbol for main, and wants to do that against something in /usr/local/lib. Is there a technical reason for this yuckiness? I note that SDL manages to provide a single main function across platforms including non-console Win32 yet for OS X can come as a simple template+framework for you to drag and drop into place. That simply isn't possible for Allegro under the current system.

EDIT2: As per usual I notice that the Project Builder template doesn't embed the framework, so Allegro apps built using the supplied template won't work on other people's Macs unless they have the Allegro Framework already installed. It also only seems to build PowerPC applications. I guess there's nobody left still using Project Builder to update it?

Attached is a new AllegroApp.xcodeproj that builds a Universal Binary for OS X v10.4+ and does embed the framework. Users of Xcode 2.4+ can use it by going to /Library/Application Support/Apple/Developer Tools/Project Templates/Application/Allegro Application, deleting the current AllegroApp.pbproj and instead dropping in the AllegroApp.xcodeproj included in the .zip file attached to this message. After that all new projects started from "New Project->Application/Allegro Application" will build Universal and embed the framework.

You haven't attached it...

[edit]
Cheater!

Not really appropriate to discuss in this thread, but:

• uploading attachments doesn't seem to work from Safari (either the "queued" message stays up forever, or the browser reports a successful upload then the attachment doesn't appear)

• logging in doesn't seem to work from Opera

So I had to download Firefox just to make this attachment. Which took a few minutes!

"We have no idea what to do with it, but give us money!"?

Well, on the ML, Evert (our current benevolent dictator for life) favored the "RL meeting" idea. So just wait until there is enough money donated to pay flight tickets for all the important allegro.cc members..

Maybe it would be better to extend 4.3s cmake build script to generate the xcode project files needed to do this instead of offering a static project file.

AFAIK it's because SDL can require the user to pump the event loop, whereas Allegro has to do it from a background thread. And on MacOS X we have to do that from the primordial (main) thread, hence we have to hijack the user's main().

Anyway, if you send a patch for this framework thingamajigy (I don't what that is) and someone else can confirm it, I'll release 4.2.1.1 in short order. For those that don't follow [AD], we're instituting a 4th version number component to get out quick fixes to the more trivial problems.

EDIT: Or do I just dump the TemplateInfo.plist, project.pbxproj and project.pbxuser files into allegro/misc? Surely admin.mode1, admin.pbxuser, thomasharte.mode2 and thomasharte.pbxuser shouldn't be included?

What a load of bull. If they take $1 minimum on each donation, then SF service is no longer free now is it.

And, it doesn't say that they still deduct those fees. It just says on December 1 of 2003 they did it.

I think it's FN stupid that SourceForge takes a share at all. If people want to dotate to SF, they will.

Oh, I didn't realise it but .xcodeproj files are bundles (i.e. folders of files that look quite a lot like a single file in the Finder) — and I guess the current .pbproj is too. I'll have a check to see what really needs to be kept and what can be thrown away as soon as I can, but it probably won't be until next week. Sorry!

Moved my posting to another thread:
http://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/588830

tobing: got a link to the thread?

I'm searching... it's slow... found it...

No. SF will not be free when they start to require one to donate so that they can take a cut. SF is simply charging for the service of trafficing money and presenting statistics on that donated money. Users receive "reward" for donating through SF in the form of a symbol placed next to their username, and the appearance of their username in the project's "Donors" field. You should also know that taking a cut of received donations is standard practice for non-profit organizations, who need money to continue operating.

Note: Do not make a reply to this thread based on anything said in the previous paragraph. You can take it up with SourceForge.

This all aside, if you want to avoid donating through SF, Paypal money to mailto:cgamesplay@gmail.com directly with a notice that it is for Allegro, and I will add it to Allegro's account.

I think first things first, we get a good domain, and an email from it to setup a paypal account for allegro, or at least as an alias for the current tresurer's.

Suggestions people, I may be willing to pick up the first year's fee.

The problem with getting a domain is that it also requires a server to host the domain on. While this is my personal favorite idea (and potentially the cheapest), we need to be careful in executing it. We need guaranteed reliability, after all.

I agree with the needing a separate email for Allegro donations One reason why donatig through SF is good: you don't know it goes to some random person's inbox

Sourceforge will allow projects to assign a real domain to their pages iirc.

At godaddy we can get a domain for like 8$ a year.

I'll repeat myself: asking for donations without a clear idea what to do with them isn't just stupid, it's bordering on dishonest. The fuzzy responsibility and ownership situation makes it even worse.

Oh, yeah, that would really benefit the library.

Now tell me again why anyone should donate?

You shouldn't, and I'm not donating either. But people (one?) have wanted to donate in the past and we didn't have anywhere to hold the money so, as far as I know, we turned down the offer.

So why this drive to scam people of their money then?

Donating meager funds to an ambiguous group is foolish and will just lead to counterproductive bickering. I think a better way to officially accept donations is for people who work on Allegro to put their realistic "wish lists" on the official site.* That way, the donor knows exactly to whom and for what his money is going. A potential donor might want to donate based on a person's country, contributions, or even the wish list itself. Now there cannot be any justified complaints, because the donor is giving his gift to whomever he wants to. The wish list might be like:

Person, Country (Contributions): Item1, Item2, $50 for Foo, etc...

And in my opinion, Allegro doesn't need a domain, commercial hosting, etc that is paid for by some donors. It's just something for people to play around on, and something that can easily be personally financed by the few who are interested in it. Once someone else is paying for something, then the accountability goes to hell. If the people who are using it pay for it, then there's actually incentive to make something useful.

^{* Obviously a contributor wouldn't be obliged to list anything, nor would his wish list have to have anything to do with Allegro or technology.}

Some donors will want their banner to be displayed somewhere.

That's not donation, that's cheap advertising.

wishlists/bounties don't typically work for OSS projects.

I honestly don't see the problem with donating, nor do I see it as a "scam".

Donations aren't people "paying" for anything. They like something, so they contribute the best way they know how.

Now, If I'm wrong, everyone needs to stop donating to projects. Like how I donated to the ktorrent project last week. And how IBM, and trolltech donate to open source projects. It starts with one person.

Other projects are not relevant. If you found something useful to donate to, then good for you (and them).

If Allegro needed capital for a specific reason, then donations would be great. To me saying, "Ooh, someone wants to donate, so let's get a server just because we can" is akin to me saying I donated to Allegro by just burning a $100 bill. Also, collecting money for "future use" is not likely to attract many people because they don't know where it's going! And if it goes to something of a dubious connection to Allegro, then they will just be upset.

My wish list is no different than when you (TF) requested money for a hard drive for your wiki. That's what I'm talking about. That was a need that was Allegro related that people could directly fund. Had there just been a general Allegro fund, there would have been fights about whether or not you (TF) "deserved" the money or not. Someone who had donated money who didn't agree with the cause would have been upset, sent some flames, and maybe kill a little kitten.

You can call it what you want (donation, wish list, etc), but unless there is a list that people can specifically give money to, it will in my opinion either go to waste or cause problems. Allegro is a project that barely has enough organization to release a new version once every two years. There's no way we could manage funds in any responsible way.

I will let you decide how strong of a "drive" this thread has been, but I would like to point out how much I have solicited donations: one paragraph in the original post. I'm not going to go around pressing people to donate, and I'm not going to say that we have a specific goal. I don't think I am sponsoring anything dishonest, because those donating aren't being mislead that their donations are going to a specific task. They are aware of exactly what is happening: the money is going toward the Allegro project, to be used in whatever way it sees fit.

At this point, I'd like to stop discussing whether or not the Allegro project should accept donations, and discuss how the donations should be handled, and what they should be used for.

Matthew: I think that this is a good idea. However, we have received two requests to be able to donate from people who didn't request a specific task (whether or not they would have after having been given the option is a different matter). I think that the sort of request you are suggesting appeals to a different kind of donator. That said, I still think it should be done. Those users who donate to specific tasks/users will do so, while funds received in the general Allegro fund will be used to supplement those same tasks, in addition to the project-level tasks we deem worthwhile.

Despite gnolam's other arguments, I do agree with this statement. However, I do assure you that funds received go into a bank account I have created specifically for Allegro. Furthermore, at present, I am simply holding money for the Allegro project. I leave it to the Allegro developers to decide what to do with the funds.

Finally, I would really like to stress that regardless of this monetary involvement, Allegro is and will remain a free library.

I updated the "donation comments" at SF now, so for whoever donates it should be clear now that there indeed is no pressing need for Allegro to collect funds.

I also don't see a big problem about fights over the money

And it's certainly not the same as burning, unless donating to any OSS project would be.

Well, SF just forwards to a random person's treasury.

I can get domains through 1and1 for as low as $4/year, depending on the TLD.

I agree that you'd potentially lose out on people who wanted to randomly give money for no reason, but to combat that, just make sure the list is never empty! The bottom line is really that we don't want a person's money if they won't agree with the cause. Therefore, I think it's bad (in a moral sense) to not put up a list simply because we are afraid they won't like the causes. We need to be honest about what the money will be used for. If they don't like the causes and it scares them from donating, then that is good. [Update: Specifically stating that there is no pressing need is good.]

That said, if we really have nothing on the wish list, then we could easily set up a mailing list. Want to donate money? Sign up for the list to be notified of future needs. If we collect money randomly with no need, we are likely to waste it on stuff that isn't needed. Then when something useful comes up, we are out of luck.

I also think it's foolish to spend the money on recurring charges (hosting, etc) when we have no guarantee of any sort of stable donations.

Personally, I don't care - but I'm not naive enough to think it won't offend people. Perhaps nothing will come out of the offense, but it wouldn't be surprising to see people quit developing on Allegro because they think someone else is abusing the funds.

I feel like the decision to spend the money given to Allegro lies with the same people whose decision it is to make an Allegro release. It seems obvious that those who donate should feel the same way.

Good, I'm sure that will help to clarify things.

Certainly. And if there were specific goals set, I'm sure we validate a more active campaign. In the mean time, there is a button ad on the Allegro page, and this thread (which will die in 2 weeks).

We'll hell, I need a bit more motivation to work on stuff sometimes. Specially if its tedious

Actually, I agree with Evert, a allegro dev meet would be a good idea, we could discuss the future, and work on the code to get something done for once.

Whoa! I hope I didn't imply that! I meant to say that we should accept donations to a general fund so that donators don't have to choose a specific cause, and can leave that up to the project members. Remember, I am in support of that list.

I hope there won't be any offense at all, but more importantly, I hope that the developers don't become bitter because money is now involved in the process. Allegro development should never become reliant on money acquired through any means.

This is a great idea, but extremely expensive. I'm fine with setting this as our goal, but I think a more useful goal would be acquiring some test environments.

Just posting to say, the final AllegroGL 0.4.0 is up at SF now. There should be no need to upgrade if the RC already was working.

How do you decide who goes to that and who doesn't so you can figure out how much $ it will cost?

The same way you'd determine how to spend any of the money: everyone fights and argues about it until nothing happens.

Regarding an Allegro meeting, people should just pay their own way or find a sponsor. That goes back to what I was getting at. Let the person paying decide who to sponsor. But you'd probably have to pick multiple locations, because it can get quite expensive to fly cross continent. It would cost around $600 for a single round trip ticket between Chicago and London.

Maybe if we are all bitter crotchety old men. The Allegro Devs are not.

To begin with I think a few Dev only IRC meets will be held.

Speaking of OSX, its handle of frameworks and datafiles is a little lacking.

namely setting the datafile name to #

datafile.set_filename("#");

Does not work. Allegro can't find the executable. Even if you chdir to Contents / Binary (or whatever the folder is, I've forgotten), it still can't find it.

Next best thing is to place data.dat into Contents/Resources and do

datafile.set_filename("Contents/Resources/data.dat");

But not supporting # is inconsistent with the docs.