December 2010 - Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

[patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 01:22:38PM +0000, Jeremy Henty wrote: > > > > Dillo's configure.in uses some obsolete autoconf/automake macros and > > calls some others in obsolete ways. This patch brings it (mostly) up > > to date. > > > > Any problems with this or shall I push it? > > From the patch and docs, it looks OK to commit. > +1 Ditto.

Dec. 31, 2010

[jcid@dillo.org: Re: [Dillo-dev] [patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration]

by jcid＠dillo.org

Just noticed I didn't replied this to the list (by mistake). -- Cheers Jorge.-

Dec. 30, 2010

[patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration

by onepoint＠starurchin.org

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 02:38:23PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Jeremy wrote: > > Dillo's configure.in uses some obsolete autoconf/automake macros > > and calls some others in obsolete ways. This patch brings it > > (mostly) up to date. > > How ancient would a user's auto* have to be to be unable to > recognize the newer form? Users don't run autoconf. What matters is whether the dev's auto* versions are new enough. Unfortunately the man pages don't say when the new macro syntaxes were introduced, but my impression is that the old versions have been deprecated for years. For comparison my versions are autoconf 2.64 (released 2009/07/26) and automake 1.11 (released 2009/05/27). Are any devs using older versions? (I thought my system was usually older than the rest of yours, witness the time when I was still on GCC 3 and submitted patches that broke under GCC 4.) I checked the release announcements on the autotools list back to autoconf 2.60 (released 2006/06/26) and automake 1.10 (released 2006/08/15) and didn't see any references to the new syntaxes of AC_INIT and AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE, so I assume that we're OK unless some of the devs have tools from before the second half of 2006. Also, after searching the autotools mailing list archives (all the way back to Feb 2003): there are no references to AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE, and of the 5 mentions of AC_INIT, the only reference to new syntax is the addition of the optional 5th argument to specify the package URL. I think we're pretty safe with the new syntax! Regards, Jeremy Henty

Dec. 30, 2010

[patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 01:22:38PM +0000, Jeremy Henty wrote: > > Dillo's configure.in uses some obsolete autoconf/automake macros and > calls some others in obsolete ways. This patch brings it (mostly) up > to date. > > Any problems with this or shall I push it? From the patch and docs, it looks OK to commit. +1 -- Cheers Jorge.-

Dec. 30, 2010

[patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jeremy wrote: > Dillo's configure.in uses some obsolete autoconf/automake macros and > calls some others in obsolete ways. This patch brings it (mostly) up > to date. How ancient would a user's auto* have to be to be unable to recognize the newer form?

Dec. 30, 2010

[patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration

by onepoint＠starurchin.org

Dillo's configure.in uses some obsolete autoconf/automake macros and calls some others in obsolete ways. This patch brings it (mostly) up to date. Any problems with this or shall I push it? Regards, Jeremy Henty References: AC_INIT autoconf manual: section 4.1: Initializing configure http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/html_node/Initializing-configur… AC_INIT (obsolete form) autoconf manual: section 18.4: Obsolete Macros http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/html_node/Obsolete-Macros.html AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE automake manual: section 6.4.1: Public Macros http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/automake/Public-Macros.html AM_CONFIG_HEADER (obsolete) automake manual: section 6.4.2: Obsolete Macros http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/automake/Obsolete-Macros.html

Dec. 30, 2010

Copy and paste from page content area

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:56:43 -0500, corvid <corvid(a)lavabit.com> wrote: > It has that mechanism where you highlight text with the left mouse button > to select it and middle button to paste somewhere, but it doesn't do the > one that uses control keys (which I've never understood the value of). Non-X11 systems don't have the select-and-middle-click mechanism, and with most X11 toolkits (Qt, GTK+, etc.), the control key mechanism is more persistent. Anyway, thanks for the answer. That's one of the next things I was planning to implement. ~Benjamin

Dec. 29, 2010

Copy and paste from page content area

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Benjamin wrote: > Was this ever implemented in the X11 version? I don't have access to a > Unix box right now, otherwise I'd just test it myself. :-) It has that mechanism where you highlight text with the left mouse button to select it and middle button to paste somewhere, but it doesn't do the one that uses control keys (which I've never understood the value of). I was going to say that sometimes I double-click words with the expectation that they'll be selected, and this makes me think: What is the double click emitter for in dw/selection.cc, anyway? I don't see anything using it...

Dec. 29, 2010

Copy and paste from page content area

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

Was this ever implemented in the X11 version? I don't have access to a Unix box right now, otherwise I'd just test it myself. :-) ~Benjamin

Dec. 29, 2010

A question about the nature of this list

by mr_semantics＠hotmail.com

---------------------------------------- > From: corvid(a)lavabit.com > Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 07:09:09 +0000 > Almost certainly something wrong in fltk2 or dillo. > The situations that I'm aware of that screw up rendering are: > - configuring fltk with --enable-cairo > - running on OSX > Do either of these apply? Well I did not explicitly do?--enable-cairo this time (or any other time I have built dillo), so I will say not. ? And I am running this on OpenSUSE Linux i386. For good measure, I went and built against a different version of fltk2, to see if I missed anything. ?Still the same trouble. ?My build process is outlined in a blog post I wrote so my friend could build it on her machine - it is ?found here (should any of you have the time to take a peek at how I built dillo) : http://totally-out-of-ideas.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-to-build-dillo-on-open… Anyway, I don't want to take up too much of your time on something that I have most likely done incorrectly in the build process. ?I will keep fiddling with it, to see what I can figure out on my own. Rob

Dec. 28, 2010