November 2008 - Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

Feature Request

by Beartooth＠swva.net

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: >> I don't thing it will be that hard to get FLTK & Dillo2 into >> Fedora, the thing is that no one did it till now :). (And I ma >> pretty busy at work & uni :) ). > > Thanks a lot for the explanation! > > Although it may be difficult to get a FLTK2 package in the distro > because FLTK2 doesn't have a stable release yet. I mean, if > policies mandate not to include alpha or beta libraries, we're > out... > > It'd be good to know this (for Fedora, Ubuntu and Debian at > least). That way we can ask the FLTK team about their schedule > plans. I hate to be taking up so much time from people I know are working so hard already, but let me ask just one more : should I be taking this up with Alpine people? Or is one of you going to do that? (You could certainly do it a lot better.) Or have you determined that the trouble is in Fedora and not in Alpine? -- Beartooth Oldfart, Double Retiree, Neo-Redneck, Linux Convert Remember, I have precious little idea what I am talking about.

Nov. 9, 2008

Feature Request

by Beartooth＠swva.net

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > The interesting question here is which 0.8.6? the official one or > the inofficial dillo-i18n one? At least debian does not ship the > official one. If that's about the dillo-i18n stuff (and not > reproducable with official dillo), then the problem should go to > the corresponding team. Definitely the official. Fedora offers both, and I always choose against the one with the funny name -- one more topic that life is too short to learn all about. -- Beartooth Oldfart, Double Retiree, Neo-Redneck, Linux Convert Remember, I have precious little idea what I am talking about.

Nov. 9, 2008

Feature Request

by Beartooth＠swva.net

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008, Johannes Hofmann wrote: >> I run Alpine 2.0; it is set to launch the default browser, which is >> dillo -- and URLs in emails are what I use a default browser for. >> >> Does this mean something in my Alpine settings (and my Pine 4.64 >> settings, which it took over) is wrong? My Fedora default browser setting >> is simply "dillo %s"; my Alpine setting is something I'll have to dig >> for, as it's buried way deep. > > I don't know what Alpine exactly does, but if I do > dillo google.com > on the command line, it works fine with both dillo 2.0 and 0.8.6. Yes, that looked normal; here, fwiw, are the messages : [btth@Hbsk2 ~]$ dillo google.com Gtk-WARNING **: Failed to load module "libgnomebreakpad.so": libgnomebreakpad.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Nav_open_url: Url=>about:splash< Nav_open_url: Url=>http://google.com< Type check: [Srv: text/html Det: text/html] Type check: [Srv: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Det: text/html] Nav_open_url: Url=>http://www.google.com/< Type check: [Srv: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Det: text/html] Type check: [Srv: image/gif Det: image/gif] Dillo: normal exit! [btth@Hbsk2 ~]$ -- Beartooth Oldfart, Double Retiree, Neo-Redneck, Linux Convert Remember, I have precious little idea what I am talking about.

Nov. 9, 2008

Feature Request

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 01:12:01PM +0100, Michal Nowak wrote: > Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 10:58:43PM +0100, Michal Nowak wrote: >>> me at swva wrote: >>>> I think I'm being unclear, in two ways. >>>> >>>>>> Just to check, I did this as root : >>>>>> >>>>>> [root@Hbsk2 btth]# rpm -q dillo >>>>>> dillo-0.8.6-7.fc9.i386 >>>>>> [root@Hbsk2 btth]# yum update dillo >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>>> Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit >>>>>> updates-newkey | 2.3 kB 00:00 >>>>>> updates | 2.6 kB 00:00 >>>>>> fedora | 2.4 kB 00:00 >>>>>> Setting up Update Process >>>>>> No Packages marked for Update >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>>> [root@Hbsk2 btth]# >>>> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Johannes Hofmann wrote: >>>> >>>>> dillo-0.8.6 is no longer supported and you should consider to >>>>> upgrade to dillo-2.0. >>>>> But nevertheless for me it also works with dillo-0.8.6. >>>> For those who run other OSs, what the emphasized lines mean is >>>> the 0.8.6 is what Fedora has, period. (I run F9, the latest >>>> release.) Any idea why it's so far behind?? I didn't realize 1.0 >>>> had become official, let alone 2.0 >>>> >>> That's life. In Fedora, nor even Rawhide, isn't Dillo v2.0. Two reasons: >>> >>> 1) No one packed FLTK 2.x, check repository there's still 1.1.9. >>> 2) Because of (1) no Dillo 2. >>> >>> Although Fedora is usually fresh, in case of Dillo it's still on >>> Dillo 0.8.6 mainline. Feel free to file bug (bugzilla.redhat.com) >>> against Dillo and Package Review for FLTK2, but be aware that having >>> unstable FLTK 2.x in Fedora might be quite fight. (Believe me I am >>> Fedora packager.) >> >> Dillo2 doesn't need an FLTK2 package installed! >> It can be statically linked in. One package, that's it. >> (this is the default BTW). >> > > Sure I am aware of that, but wrt Fedora, it's something neat forbidden > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLibraryPolicy > > unless necessary (and this is not the case). > >> Now, if distros need to also provide source packages by policy, >> then that's a different story. >> > > Correct. FLTK can't just be present in compile time, somehow, toolchain > has to be clear and for everyone from day0. > >> Please clarify me because I've read that complaint a few times, >> and don't yet know whether it's my fault not making the statical >> linking clear enough to packagers, or if there's a packaging >> policy issue I don't know of. :) >> > > From my POV, in distros we don't want static built packages; security > flaws in linked-in libraries is the main concern. One has to rebuild all > apps with those libraries, not just the library (obvious). > > I don't thing it will be that hard to get FLTK & Dillo2 into Fedora, the > thing is that no one did it till now :). (And I ma pretty busy at work & > uni :) ). Thanks a lot for the explanation! Although it may be difficult to get a FLTK2 package in the distro because FLTK2 doesn't have a stable release yet. I mean, if policies mandate not to include alpha or beta libraries, we're out... It'd be good to know this (for Fedora, Ubuntu and Debian at least). That way we can ask the FLTK team about their schedule plans. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Nov. 9, 2008

rebased patch: print numeric addresses instead of pointer

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 07:57:17PM +0100, Justus Winter wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > *bump* > > ;) Justus Committed with minor changes. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Nov. 9, 2008

patch: savefile url name

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 03:10:22PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Anyway, here's a patch that I've had sitting around for a while. > > I have a bad habit of hitting space to page down when the > Location field still has focus, which would break things > when trying to save... Committed. I seem to recall there was a problem with not taking the URL from the location bar. It may be from dillo1 days though... The patch was committed to check it in practice. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Nov. 9, 2008

Feature Request

by newman.x＠gmail.com

Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 10:58:43PM +0100, Michal Nowak wrote: >> me at swva wrote: >>> I think I'm being unclear, in two ways. >>> >>>>> Just to check, I did this as root : >>>>> >>>>> [root@Hbsk2 btth]# rpm -q dillo >>>>> dillo-0.8.6-7.fc9.i386 >>>>> [root@Hbsk2 btth]# yum update dillo >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>> Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit >>>>> updates-newkey | 2.3 kB 00:00 >>>>> updates | 2.6 kB 00:00 >>>>> fedora | 2.4 kB 00:00 >>>>> Setting up Update Process >>>>> No Packages marked for Update >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>> [root@Hbsk2 btth]# >>> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Johannes Hofmann wrote: >>> >>>> dillo-0.8.6 is no longer supported and you should consider to >>>> upgrade to dillo-2.0. >>>> But nevertheless for me it also works with dillo-0.8.6. >>> For those who run other OSs, what the emphasized lines mean is the >>> 0.8.6 is what Fedora has, period. (I run F9, the latest release.) Any >>> idea why it's so far behind?? I didn't realize 1.0 had become official, >>> let alone 2.0 >>> >> That's life. In Fedora, nor even Rawhide, isn't Dillo v2.0. Two reasons: >> >> 1) No one packed FLTK 2.x, check repository there's still 1.1.9. >> 2) Because of (1) no Dillo 2. >> >> Although Fedora is usually fresh, in case of Dillo it's still on Dillo >> 0.8.6 mainline. Feel free to file bug (bugzilla.redhat.com) against >> Dillo and Package Review for FLTK2, but be aware that having unstable >> FLTK 2.x in Fedora might be quite fight. (Believe me I am Fedora >> packager.) > > Dillo2 doesn't need an FLTK2 package installed! > It can be statically linked in. One package, that's it. > (this is the default BTW). > Sure I am aware of that, but wrt Fedora, it's something neat forbidden https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLibraryPolicy unless necessary (and this is not the case). > Now, if distros need to also provide source packages by policy, > then that's a different story. > Correct. FLTK can't just be present in compile time, somehow, toolchain has to be clear and for everyone from day0. > Please clarify me because I've read that complaint a few times, > and don't yet know whether it's my fault not making the statical > linking clear enough to packagers, or if there's a packaging > policy issue I don't know of. :) > From my POV, in distros we don't want static built packages; security flaws in linked-in libraries is the main concern. One has to rebuild all apps with those libraries, not just the library (obvious). I don't thing it will be that hard to get FLTK & Dillo2 into Fedora, the thing is that no one did it till now :). (And I ma pretty busy at work & uni :) ). Michal

Nov. 9, 2008

Feature Request

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 10:58:43PM +0100, Michal Nowak wrote: > me at swva wrote: >> >> I think I'm being unclear, in two ways. >> >>>> Just to check, I did this as root : >>>> >>>> [root@Hbsk2 btth]# rpm -q dillo >>>> dillo-0.8.6-7.fc9.i386 >>>> [root@Hbsk2 btth]# yum update dillo >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit >>>> updates-newkey | 2.3 kB 00:00 >>>> updates | 2.6 kB 00:00 >>>> fedora | 2.4 kB 00:00 >>>> Setting up Update Process >>>> No Packages marked for Update >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> [root@Hbsk2 btth]# >> >> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Johannes Hofmann wrote: >> >>> dillo-0.8.6 is no longer supported and you should consider to >>> upgrade to dillo-2.0. >>> But nevertheless for me it also works with dillo-0.8.6. >> >> For those who run other OSs, what the emphasized lines mean is the >> 0.8.6 is what Fedora has, period. (I run F9, the latest release.) Any >> idea why it's so far behind?? I didn't realize 1.0 had become official, >> let alone 2.0 >> > > That's life. In Fedora, nor even Rawhide, isn't Dillo v2.0. Two reasons: > > 1) No one packed FLTK 2.x, check repository there's still 1.1.9. > 2) Because of (1) no Dillo 2. > > Although Fedora is usually fresh, in case of Dillo it's still on Dillo > 0.8.6 mainline. Feel free to file bug (bugzilla.redhat.com) against > Dillo and Package Review for FLTK2, but be aware that having unstable > FLTK 2.x in Fedora might be quite fight. (Believe me I am Fedora > packager.) Dillo2 doesn't need an FLTK2 package installed! It can be statically linked in. One package, that's it. (this is the default BTW). Now, if distros need to also provide source packages by policy, then that's a different story. Please clarify me because I've read that complaint a few times, and don't yet know whether it's my fault not making the statical linking clear enough to packagers, or if there's a packaging policy issue I don't know of. :) -- Cheers Jorge.-

Nov. 9, 2008

Feature Request

by akemnade＠tzi.de

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 09:38:11 +0100 Johannes Hofmann <Johannes.Hofmann(a)gmx.de> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 04:40:01PM -0500, me at swva wrote: > > > > I think I'm being unclear, in two ways. > > > >>> Just to check, I did this as root : > >>> > >>> [root@Hbsk2 btth]# rpm -q dillo > >>> dillo-0.8.6-7.fc9.i386 > >>> [root@Hbsk2 btth]# yum update dillo > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >>> Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit > >>> updates-newkey | 2.3 kB 00:00 > >>> updates | 2.6 kB 00:00 > >>> fedora | 2.4 kB 00:00 > >>> Setting up Update Process > >>> No Packages marked for Update > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >>> [root@Hbsk2 btth]# > > > > On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Johannes Hofmann wrote: > > > >> dillo-0.8.6 is no longer supported and you should consider to > >> upgrade to dillo-2.0. > >> But nevertheless for me it also works with dillo-0.8.6. > > > > For those who run other OSs, what the emphasized lines mean is the 0.8.6 > > is what Fedora has, period. (I run F9, the latest release.) Any idea why > > it's so far behind?? I didn't realize 1.0 had become official, let alone > > 2.0 > > > >> If you enter "google.com" in the location bar and hit return > >> it doesn't go to google? > > > > It does indeed. I'm putting this badly. > > > > I run Alpine 2.0; it is set to launch the default browser, which is > > dillo -- and URLs in emails are what I use a default browser for. > > > > Does this mean something in my Alpine settings (and my Pine 4.64 > > settings, which it took over) is wrong? My Fedora default browser setting > > is simply "dillo %s"; my Alpine setting is something I'll have to dig > > for, as it's buried way deep. > > I don't know what Alpine exactly does, but if I do > dillo google.com > on the command line, it works fine with both dillo 2.0 and 0.8.6. > The interesting question here is which 0.8.6? the official one or the inofficial dillo-i18n one? At least debian does not ship the official one. If that's about the dillo-i18n stuff (and not reproducable with official dillo), then the problem should go to the corresponding team. Greetings Andreas Kemnade

Nov. 9, 2008

Feature Request

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 04:40:01PM -0500, me at swva wrote: > > I think I'm being unclear, in two ways. > >>> Just to check, I did this as root : >>> >>> [root@Hbsk2 btth]# rpm -q dillo >>> dillo-0.8.6-7.fc9.i386 >>> [root@Hbsk2 btth]# yum update dillo > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit >>> updates-newkey | 2.3 kB 00:00 >>> updates | 2.6 kB 00:00 >>> fedora | 2.4 kB 00:00 >>> Setting up Update Process >>> No Packages marked for Update > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> [root@Hbsk2 btth]# > > On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Johannes Hofmann wrote: > >> dillo-0.8.6 is no longer supported and you should consider to >> upgrade to dillo-2.0. >> But nevertheless for me it also works with dillo-0.8.6. > > For those who run other OSs, what the emphasized lines mean is the 0.8.6 > is what Fedora has, period. (I run F9, the latest release.) Any idea why > it's so far behind?? I didn't realize 1.0 had become official, let alone > 2.0 > >> If you enter "google.com" in the location bar and hit return >> it doesn't go to google? > > It does indeed. I'm putting this badly. > > I run Alpine 2.0; it is set to launch the default browser, which is > dillo -- and URLs in emails are what I use a default browser for. > > Does this mean something in my Alpine settings (and my Pine 4.64 > settings, which it took over) is wrong? My Fedora default browser setting > is simply "dillo %s"; my Alpine setting is something I'll have to dig > for, as it's buried way deep. I don't know what Alpine exactly does, but if I do dillo google.com on the command line, it works fine with both dillo 2.0 and 0.8.6.

Nov. 9, 2008