June 2009 - Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

Feels good to be free. Close-tab button.

by jorl17.8＠gmail.com

Well, I promised I would report to you when I got more free time. Guess what, I'm on vacation! Getting free time from my own personal projects finally lets me take a closer look at Dillo. I am sorry for being away for such a long time, though. I would like to contribute to one area that I have contributed previously -- the close-tab button. It isn't critical, I know, but, for now, it's the best I can do. The idea now is to finally have a button in each tab. It is tough, but I am getting somewhere. The 'initial' drawing part is done, but I have had to make some small changes to some virtual functions, and also changing non-virtual functions and finding a way to 'enable' them in the code. It's pretty hackish right now, but I have managed to print the button and am now starting to handle all the events and different button states (clicked, over, etcetera). I'll keep you updated! Jo?o

June 30, 2009

[PATCH] warning: ignoring return value of ???int chdir(const char*)???

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:20:27PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Michal wrote: > > cookies.c: > > + rc = fgets(line, LINE_MAXLEN, stream); > > + if (!rc) { > > + MSG("Cookies: Error while reading rule from cookiesrc\n"); > > + /* (Partially) corrupted file? Skip this unreadable line */ > > + continue; > > + } > > > > The idea was to read all the lines with rules and skip those > > unreadable, so we have the rules before and after the unreadable > > part. But - can something like this happen? And will it in reality > > perform like I expect in the code? > > > > Another quirk I found is that I always receive one this line > > at Dillo start: > > > > Cookies: Error while reading rule from cookiesrc > > > > I guess there's some problem with EOF handling. > > I think I would just loop while the return from fgets() > 0 > and then give an error if ferror(stream) is nonzero. Committed with modifications. Please check it. -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 27, 2009

[PATCH] warning: ignoring return value of ???int chdir(const char*)???

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Michal wrote: > cookies.c: > + rc = fgets(line, LINE_MAXLEN, stream); > + if (!rc) { > + MSG("Cookies: Error while reading rule from cookiesrc\n"); > + /* (Partially) corrupted file? Skip this unreadable line */ > + continue; > + } > > The idea was to read all the lines with rules and skip those > unreadable, so we have the rules before and after the unreadable > part. But - can something like this happen? And will it in reality > perform like I expect in the code? > > Another quirk I found is that I always receive one this line > at Dillo start: > > Cookies: Error while reading rule from cookiesrc > > I guess there's some problem with EOF handling. I think I would just loop while the return from fgets() > 0 and then give an error if ferror(stream) is nonzero.

June 25, 2009

[PATCH] warning: ignoring return value of ???int chdir(const char*)???

by newman.x＠gmail.com

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:20:11PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:03:26AM +0200, Michal Nowak wrote: > > gcc-4.4.0-4.i586 > > > > HG tip: > > > > newman src $ make | grep -i warning > > [...] > > paths.cc: In static member function ???static void Paths::init()???: > > paths.cc:38: warning: ignoring return value of ???int chdir(const char*)???, declared with attribute warn_unused_result > > > > With the patch dillo-guard-chdir.patch no warning. But this > > patch alone won't have any effect, all MSG(...) from > > Paths::init() won't write anything to output due to > > prefs.show_msg not being set to TRUE at that moment. Patch > > dillo-use-MSG-asap.patch moves a_Prefs_init() > > before Paths::init() is called. Hope it's not breaking > > anything. > > > > Tested > > - setting non-existing directory instead of /tmp > > - Dillo won't crash on start, basic browsing works > > Committed. > > > There're also: > > cookies.c:90: warning: ignoring return value of 'write', > cookies.c:249: warning: ignoring return value of 'fgets', > dpid.c:754: warning: ignoring return value of 'write' > bookmarks.c:696: warning: ignoring return value of 'system' > bookmarks.c:698: warning: ignoring return value of 'system' > cookies.c:188: warning: ignoring return value of 'write' > cookies.c:276: warning: ignoring return value of 'fgets' > cookies.c:341: warning: ignoring return value of 'fgets' > cookies.c:428: warning: ignoring return value of 'ftruncate' > cookies.c:1234: warning: ignoring return value of 'fgets' > datauri.c:283: warning: ignoring return value of 'chdir' > ftp.c:280: warning: ignoring return value of 'chdir' > > Can you please make a patch for those too? Attaching the patch. But few comments first. cookies.c: + rc = fgets(line, LINE_MAXLEN, stream); + if (!rc) { + MSG("Cookies: Error while reading rule from cookiesrc\n"); + /* (Partially) corrupted file? Skip this unreadable line */ + continue; + } The idea was to read all the lines with rules and skip those unreadable, so we have the rules before and after the unreadable part. But - can something like this happen? And will it in reality perform like I expect in the code? Another quirk I found is that I always receive one this line at Dillo start: Cookies: Error while reading rule from cookiesrc I guess there's some problem with EOF handling. > > -- > Cheers > Jorge.- > Michal > _______________________________________________ > Dillo-dev mailing list > Dillo-dev(a)dillo.org > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev -- Regards, Michal Nowak

June 25, 2009

[marcio.ccamargo@gmail.com: Thank u!]

by jcid＠dillo.org

Hi, :) -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 25, 2009

dillo 2.1]

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:59:00PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Jorge wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:05:07PM +0000, corvid wrote: > > > Jorge wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:01:12PM +0300, Tomas Rimkus wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Accidentally sent to corvid only. Forwarding to dillo-dev. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems whoever designed the new website theme has no idea what > > > > > > > > READABILITY means... It looks like someone just used some stupid online > > > > > > > > color picker, which just picks some similar colors to the one user > > > > > > > > chooses. The old website looked MUCH MUCH better. Imho, it's a > > > > > > > > regression... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hm I like the new design, but I agree that readability might be a problem. > > > > > > > Let's see what other say. > > > > > > > > > > > > I still find visited text to be hard to read, but I know I should > > > > > > break down and get a new display... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder if you are the only dillo user with old display... BTW, I am using > > > > > pretty new LCD display and still find it hard to read. > > > > > > > > OK, we also had readability concerns but we agreed that it was > > > > enough. OTOH some people bashed the old design as prehistoric! > > > > > > > > After all it's a matter of taste. > > > > Usability is a different thing. Maybe you need higher contrast > > > > to see clearly (I suffer with white backgrounds). Do you find > > > > this one better to read [1]? > > > > > > > > What do other people think about the new web design? > > > > Aesthetically and from a readability point of view. > > > > Please comment. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] http://www.dillo.org/test/website/dillo2.2.html > > > > > > The test page's visited text is easier for me to read than > > > the home page's visited text. > > > > Funny how it's the reverse effect for me! :-) > > > > > > Please test: > > > > :visited {color: #403090 !important} > > > > and > > > > :visited {color: #603060 !important} > > > > on http://www.dillo.org/ and FAQ. > > > > I prefer the first one because it fits the palette better. > > First one is easier. Committed. -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 25, 2009

patch: save bookmark segfault when dpis not found

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 02:50:17PM +0000, corvid wrote: > > A new one seen in the bugtracker... > > > > a_Bookmarks_chat_add() sets URL to NULL, so it needs to be handled. > > > > Anyway, the reason this is interesting is that I had always figured > > the URL_*() macros were protecting against a NULL URL, when really > > they protect against NULL fields in URLs. > > Right. > > Please commit (with changelog entry) and update the > bug track entry as "done". The entry is also partly about the fact that the dpis aren't working with their deb package. Perhaps something is broken in it with sysconfdir changing.

June 24, 2009

dillo 2.1]

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:59:00PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Jorge wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:05:07PM +0000, corvid wrote: > > > Jorge wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:01:12PM +0300, Tomas Rimkus wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Accidentally sent to corvid only. Forwarding to dillo-dev. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems whoever designed the new website theme has no idea what > > > > > > > > READABILITY means... It looks like someone just used some stupid online > > > > > > > > color picker, which just picks some similar colors to the one user > > > > > > > > chooses. The old website looked MUCH MUCH better. Imho, it's a > > > > > > > > regression... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hm I like the new design, but I agree that readability might be a problem. > > > > > > > Let's see what other say. > > > > > > > > > > > > I still find visited text to be hard to read, but I know I should > > > > > > break down and get a new display... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder if you are the only dillo user with old display... BTW, I am using > > > > > pretty new LCD display and still find it hard to read. > > > > > > > > OK, we also had readability concerns but we agreed that it was > > > > enough. OTOH some people bashed the old design as prehistoric! > > > > > > > > After all it's a matter of taste. > > > > Usability is a different thing. Maybe you need higher contrast > > > > to see clearly (I suffer with white backgrounds). Do you find > > > > this one better to read [1]? > > > > > > > > What do other people think about the new web design? > > > > Aesthetically and from a readability point of view. > > > > Please comment. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] http://www.dillo.org/test/website/dillo2.2.html > > > > > > The test page's visited text is easier for me to read than > > > the home page's visited text. > > > > Funny how it's the reverse effect for me! :-) > > > > > > Please test: > > > > :visited {color: #403090 !important} > > > > and > > > > :visited {color: #603060 !important} > > > > on http://www.dillo.org/ and FAQ. > > > > I prefer the first one because it fits the palette better. > > First one is easier. Is it good enough for you? -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 24, 2009

dillo 2.1]

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:05:07PM +0000, corvid wrote: > > Jorge wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:01:12PM +0300, Tomas Rimkus wrote: > > > > > > > > Accidentally sent to corvid only. Forwarding to dillo-dev. > > > > > > > > > > > It seems whoever designed the new website theme has no idea what > > > > > > > READABILITY means... It looks like someone just used some stupid online > > > > > > > color picker, which just picks some similar colors to the one user > > > > > > > chooses. The old website looked MUCH MUCH better. Imho, it's a > > > > > > > regression... > > > > > > > > > > > > Hm I like the new design, but I agree that readability might be a problem. > > > > > > Let's see what other say. > > > > > > > > > > I still find visited text to be hard to read, but I know I should > > > > > break down and get a new display... > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder if you are the only dillo user with old display... BTW, I am using > > > > pretty new LCD display and still find it hard to read. > > > > > > OK, we also had readability concerns but we agreed that it was > > > enough. OTOH some people bashed the old design as prehistoric! > > > > > > After all it's a matter of taste. > > > Usability is a different thing. Maybe you need higher contrast > > > to see clearly (I suffer with white backgrounds). Do you find > > > this one better to read [1]? > > > > > > What do other people think about the new web design? > > > Aesthetically and from a readability point of view. > > > Please comment. > > > > > > > > > [1] http://www.dillo.org/test/website/dillo2.2.html > > > > The test page's visited text is easier for me to read than > > the home page's visited text. > > Funny how it's the reverse effect for me! :-) > > > Please test: > > :visited {color: #403090 !important} > > and > > :visited {color: #603060 !important} > > on http://www.dillo.org/ and FAQ. > > I prefer the first one because it fits the palette better. First one is easier.

June 24, 2009

dillo 2.1]

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:05:07PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Jorge wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:01:12PM +0300, Tomas Rimkus wrote: > > > > > > Accidentally sent to corvid only. Forwarding to dillo-dev. > > > > > > > > > It seems whoever designed the new website theme has no idea what > > > > > > READABILITY means... It looks like someone just used some stupid online > > > > > > color picker, which just picks some similar colors to the one user > > > > > > chooses. The old website looked MUCH MUCH better. Imho, it's a > > > > > > regression... > > > > > > > > > > Hm I like the new design, but I agree that readability might be a problem. > > > > > Let's see what other say. > > > > > > > > I still find visited text to be hard to read, but I know I should > > > > break down and get a new display... > > > > > > > > > > I wonder if you are the only dillo user with old display... BTW, I am using > > > pretty new LCD display and still find it hard to read. > > > > OK, we also had readability concerns but we agreed that it was > > enough. OTOH some people bashed the old design as prehistoric! > > > > After all it's a matter of taste. > > Usability is a different thing. Maybe you need higher contrast > > to see clearly (I suffer with white backgrounds). Do you find > > this one better to read [1]? > > > > What do other people think about the new web design? > > Aesthetically and from a readability point of view. > > Please comment. > > > > > > [1] http://www.dillo.org/test/website/dillo2.2.html > > The test page's visited text is easier for me to read than > the home page's visited text. Funny how it's the reverse effect for me! :-) Please test: :visited {color: #403090 !important} and :visited {color: #603060 !important} on http://www.dillo.org/ and FAQ. I prefer the first one because it fits the palette better. -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 24, 2009