January 2011 - Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

patch: configure rm libpng version tests

by weigelt＠metux.de

* Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg.sonnenberger(a)web.de> schrieb: > > No, upstream should do that (packagers should not have to touch any > > area of the sourcecode). And importing packages should _use_ it. > > (instead of old legacy cruft like the -config scripts or esoteric > > autofool macros). > > You are misunderstanding what I say. Packagers should depend on > pkg-config. If they don't, they are responsible for doing it by hand. To make it a bit more clear: packagers (those folks who create the packages for certain distros) should (be able to) rely on the individual upstreams properly using the pkg-config infrastructure, so they have one common place for doing their necessary adaptions. > > Why should some refuse to install such an fundamental tool ? > > Have you ever looked at the pkg-config source? For something as > fundamental as pkg-config, the source code is a mess. It has a local > copy of at least half of glib1 for example... Yes, I've worked on the codebase. It's not nice, but at least it works (probably better than it will after the already discussed transition to glib2 ;-p). Patches are always welcomed ;-) cu -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weigelt(a)metux.de mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan. 31, 2011

patch: configure rm libpng version tests

by joerg.sonnenberger＠web.de

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 01:21:36AM +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > * Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg.sonnenberger(a)web.de> schrieb: > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 09:47:05PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > > > * Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg.sonnenberger(a)web.de> schrieb: > > > > Pretty much. If you don't have it, you can still override the automatic > > > > detection via PNG_CFLAGS / PNG_LIBS or so. > > > > > > Which requires another special tweak in the distro's package > > > build rules/descriptors - exactly what packagers do not like. > > > > Packagers should provide pkg-config. > > No, upstream should do that (packagers should not have to touch any > area of the sourcecode). And importing packages should _use_ it. > (instead of old legacy cruft like the -config scripts or esoteric > autofool macros). You are misunderstanding what I say. Packagers should depend on pkg-config. If they don't, they are responsible for doing it by hand. > > The only situation in which the manual override is needed if you > > want to build it on a system that doesn't have pkg-config and > > where you don't want to install it. > > Why should some refuse to install such an fundamental tool ? Have you ever looked at the pkg-config source? For something as fundamental as pkg-config, the source code is a mess. It has a local copy of at least half of glib1 for example... Joerg

Jan. 31, 2011

patch: configure rm libpng version tests

by weigelt＠metux.de

* Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg.sonnenberger(a)web.de> schrieb: > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 09:47:05PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > > * Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg.sonnenberger(a)web.de> schrieb: > > > > > Because most of the original libpng-config is older than the pkgconfig > > > support in libpng :) > > > > Be prepared that it gets dropped some day. (some distros maybe > > already removed it already). And keep in mind that these *-config > > scripts are quite crosscompile-unfriedly. > > Well, as long as upstream installs it... Lets see, how long ... > > > Pretty much. If you don't have it, you can still override the automatic > > > detection via PNG_CFLAGS / PNG_LIBS or so. > > > > Which requires another special tweak in the distro's package > > build rules/descriptors - exactly what packagers do not like. > > Packagers should provide pkg-config. No, upstream should do that (packagers should not have to touch any area of the sourcecode). And importing packages should _use_ it. (instead of old legacy cruft like the -config scripts or esoteric autofool macros). > The only situation in which the manual override is needed if you > want to build it on a system that doesn't have pkg-config and > where you don't want to install it. Why should some refuse to install such an fundamental tool ? cu -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weigelt(a)metux.de mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan. 31, 2011

patch: configure rm libpng version tests

by joerg.sonnenberger＠web.de

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 09:47:05PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > * Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg.sonnenberger(a)web.de> schrieb: > > > Because most of the original libpng-config is older than the pkgconfig > > support in libpng :) > > Be prepared that it gets dropped some day. (some distros maybe > already removed it already). And keep in mind that these *-config > scripts are quite crosscompile-unfriedly. Well, as long as upstream installs it... > > > Pretty much. If you don't have it, you can still override the automatic > > detection via PNG_CFLAGS / PNG_LIBS or so. > > Which requires another special tweak in the distro's package > build rules/descriptors - exactly what packagers do not like. Packagers should provide pkg-config. The only situation in which the manual override is needed if you want to build it on a system that doesn't have pkg-config and where you don't want to install it. Joerg

Jan. 30, 2011

patch: configure rm libpng version tests

by weigelt＠metux.de

* Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg.sonnenberger(a)web.de> schrieb: > Because most of the original libpng-config is older than the pkgconfig > support in libpng :) Be prepared that it gets dropped some day. (some distros maybe already removed it already). And keep in mind that these *-config scripts are quite crosscompile-unfriedly. > Pretty much. If you don't have it, you can still override the automatic > detection via PNG_CFLAGS / PNG_LIBS or so. Which requires another special tweak in the distro's package build rules/descriptors - exactly what packagers do not like. cu -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weigelt(a)metux.de mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan. 30, 2011

Final release of FLTK 2.0 Dillo

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 08:57:33PM +0000, corvid wrote: > T wrote: > > I wonder what a projected timeline for the 1.3 release will be.... No timeline yet (we'd need some effort estimation for it) > I suppose a safe answer is a) when it's ready, and b) the value will be a > function of the degree of community involvement. > > How many things are even still decently broken? Let's see... > - the UI needs attention > - the user/pass dialog, and choice5 dialog > - a couple of scrollbar infelicities > - complexButton drawing > - some event focus stuff that we haven't untangled yet. Using this as an "effort estimation", I'd say if one developer works full time one week on it, most of it would be done. No big deal. (FWIW, I wrote dillo's GTK1 and FLTK2 UI). BTW, the key point in dillo development since a long time, is manpower. When there're developers working on something, it advances very well. For the same reason, I want to thank corvid for all the effort he has put on the 1.3 branch. When I have some time I'll look into the UI. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Jan. 30, 2011

Final release of FLTK 2.0 Dillo

by rogerx.oss＠gmail.com

> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 06:42:00PM -0500, Benjamin Johnson wrote: >On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:26:32 -0500, Roger <rogerx.oss(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> ??? But all the other browsers are bloating pieces of cr*p though! > >Yes, Lynx is really letting itself go these days... Sorry. Forgot my other most used browser, aside from Dillo, is ELinks. Guess I was really poking at the other GUI browsers! -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/

Jan. 30, 2011

patch: configure rm libpng version tests

by joerg.sonnenberger＠web.de

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 08:38:50PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Enrico wrote: > > * corvid <corvid(a)lavabit.com> schrieb: > > > + PNG_CONFIG=`which libpng-config` > > > fi > > > > Why not just using pkg-config ? > > (which would be _much_ more distmaintainer/packager-friendly) Because most of the original libpng-config is older than the pkgconfig support in libpng :) > > > > PKG_CHECK_MODULE([...]) > > Is pkg-config ubiquitous where we aren't adding to dependencies too much? Pretty much. If you don't have it, you can still override the automatic detection via PNG_CFLAGS / PNG_LIBS or so. Joerg

Jan. 30, 2011

Final release of FLTK 2.0 Dillo

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:26:32 -0500, Roger <rogerx.oss(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ??? But all the other browsers are bloating pieces of cr*p though! Yes, Lynx is really letting itself go these days...

Jan. 30, 2011

Final release of FLTK 2.0 Dillo

by rogerx.oss＠gmail.com

> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 08:57:33PM +0000, corvid wrote: >T wrote: >> I wonder what a projected timeline for the 1.3 release will be.... > >I suppose a safe answer is a) when it's ready, and b) the value will be a >function of the degree of community involvement. >How many things are even still decently broken? Let's see... >- the UI needs attention >- the user/pass dialog, and choice5 dialog >- a couple of scrollbar infelicities >- complexButton drawing >- some event focus stuff that we haven't untangled yet. I see the glitch or two within the UI, along with scrollbar lag. >I'm not sure that I even have any need for ordinary dillo anymore. >I still run it by accident sometimes, but... ??? But all the other browsers are bloating pieces of cr*p though! What's even funnier, I think the major news websites just tripled the amount of scripts on their websites within the past month! Pretty soon, we're going to need a 2Ghz CPU just to Google! -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/

Jan. 30, 2011