- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

dillo-2.1.tar.bz2

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Michal wrote: > I understand that my proposal won't be popular but switching from > FLTK2 is necessary - we hardly have FLTK2 in distributions (read: no > Dillo-2 in distribution) and that's shortening our user base. > > How hard it would be to rewrite/port Dillo-2 to FLTK-1.3? > > (I see that the speed of v1.3 development is nothing exciting, but > from what I read months ago they at least plan to have a release > ever.) > > While looking at the devel cycle of Dillo - two releases per year - > I believe this porting should be mid-term goal. Unless we wanna > spend another year out of mainstream distributions. (And frankly: > even with Dillo-2 based on FLTK-1.3 we are quite far from Dillo-2 > in distribution...) It seems to be the consensus that going to 1.3 will happen eventually. They still have some work on UTF-8 to do first: http://svn.easysw.com/public/fltk/fltk/branches/branch-1.3/TODO.utf8 Out of curiosity, I once made a dillo that compiled with 1.3. It failed to work at all because I don't know the fltk and dw code well enough in general, but I was satisfied with getting an idea of how much there was to it. - We would have to get Johannes to do dw/fltkview*. - Fonts are a bit different. I didn't dig into that. - Menus are a bit different. Didn't dig into that either. - The PackedGroup for the UI behaved differently. I fought with it for a little while, then grew impatient. The rest was mostly changing a whole lot of fltk::something to Fl_something.

June 18, 2009

dillo-2.1.tar.bz2

by newman.x＠gmail.com

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:00 AM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid(a)dillo.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 05:45:02PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:01:12PM +0200, Devid Antonio Filoni wrote: >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid(a)dillo.org> wrote: >> > > Hi Michal, >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:11:44PM +0200, Michal Nowak wrote: >> > >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Kelson Vibber<kelson(a)pobox.com> wrote: >> > >> > Michal Nowak wrote: >> > >> >> >> > >> >> I'd like to create Fedora RPM's (since I am Fedora packager), the >> > >> >> problem is that fltk2 is not in Fedora (Package Review's pending [1], >> > >> >> help welcomed), so, only unofficial packages are doable now. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Problem with Fedora 11 is that fltk2 can't be built with recent g++ [2]. I >> > >> >> might check with with F-10, it used to work. >> > >> > >> > >> > I've just built FLTK2 r6786 and Dillo 2.1 on a Fedora 10 system, so it does >> > >> > work there. >> > > >> > > ?It's ?good ?to ?see ?you're ?already ?coordinating with Kelson, >> > > because that's exactly what I was to suggest. >> > > >> > > >> > >> In http://fltk.org/str.php?L2205 I was suggested to make a code change in >> > >> FLTK2, I did so and it compiles fine now. I am not sure of the root cause >> > >> because fltk guys suggested that the problem is glibc-2.10 and pointed to >> > >> patch but the patch looks to be incorporated in F-11 glibc. >> > > >> > > ?FLTK2 is giving some confusion even to FLTK developers: >> > > http://fltk.org/newsgroups.php?s6818+gfltk.development+T1 >> > > ("pre-release thread"). >> > > >> > > ?In a nutshell (from my point of view): >> > > >> > > ? * fltk2 is not officially released, and maybe never will. >> > > ? * dillo2 uses fltk2, and this creates pressure to package it. >> > > ? * Distros have a policy against statically-linked binaries. >> > > ? * We can provide unofficial statically-linked packages until >> > > ? ? the distro provides a shared fltk2 lib. >> > > >> > > ?So, I'd suggest to package a statically-linked binary until the >> > > shared ?fltk2 ?is ?available from the distro. Once this happen we >> > > can provide a dynamic one. >> > > >> > > ?This ?avoids ?having to sort out the patching/adjusting problem >> > > of packaging a shared library, which is best solved by the distro >> > > itself. >> > > >> > > ?Now, ?it looks like you are the Fedora distro developer working >> > > on ?both ?fltk2 ?and ?dillo2, ?so in this case you can decide and >> > > suggest what looks best from your point of view. >> > > >> > > ?From ?a user perspective, it looks simpler to download a single >> > > binary ?and ?install it. If the shared way is decided, we need to >> > > provide nutshell directions. >> > > >> > > ?In ?the ?Debian ?case, I assume a statically linked deb will be >> > > produced (until the license problem is solved). >> > Yes, I preparated an FLTK2 Debian package and it is built as static >> > lib but this should be avoided if possible, the problem is that fltk2 >> > isn't stable enough so ATM it is static... The Debian license is the >> > issue that doesn't allow me to upload the fltk2 ?(and also dillo2) >> > package in Debian, there is an open bug about this >> > (http://www.fltk.org/str.php?L2198+P0+S-2+C0+I0+E0+Qlicense) >> >> ? OK. >> >> ? BTW, the rc2 version of dillo-2.1 (hopefully final) was >> just uploaded to http://www.dillo.org/download/ so packagers >> can make the respective files. >> >> ? The idea is to make the announcement tomorrow in the morning. >> >> ? Devid: please send me the .deb and its directions when done. >> >> ? Same for rpm. > > ?Last but not the least. > > ?I use "./configure --enable-ssl" bacause that way dillo is much > more ?useful (mainly for reading forums and bug trackers). So I'd > suggest ?to ?make ?the packages with SSL enabled, unless somebody > reembers a compelling reason not to do so. > > ?There're ?times ?when ?the ?certificate asking dialog bombs the > user, ?but maybe not so often, or annoyingly enough, to avoid the > SSL dpi. > > ?Comments? > Generally speaking for Fedora, we won't turn on options which are not turned on by default in upstream - it usually brings divergence from upstream and comments in upstream mailing lists (not this one :) ) like: "That poor distroX turned on --enable-coolness so we are not supporting users of this distro at all." Turning on SSL in upstream means more pressure for fixing it, usually :). But I am reading dillo-dev long enough to know it's not that easy. > > -- > ?Cheers > ?Jorge.- > > _______________________________________________ > Dillo-dev mailing list > Dillo-dev(a)dillo.org > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev >

June 18, 2009

dillo-2.1.tar.bz2

by newman.x＠gmail.com

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid(a)dillo.org> wrote: > Hi Michal, Hola Jorge, > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:11:44PM +0200, Michal Nowak wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Kelson Vibber<kelson(a)pobox.com> wrote: >> > Michal Nowak wrote: >> >> >> >> I'd like to create Fedora RPM's (since I am Fedora packager), the >> >> problem is that fltk2 is not in Fedora (Package Review's pending [1], >> >> help welcomed), so, only unofficial packages are doable now. >> >> >> >> Problem with Fedora 11 is that fltk2 can't be built with recent g++ [2]. I >> >> might check with with F-10, it used to work. >> > >> > I've just built FLTK2 r6786 and Dillo 2.1 on a Fedora 10 system, so it does >> > work there. > > ?It's ?good ?to ?see ?you're ?already ?coordinating with Kelson, > because that's exactly what I was to suggest. > > >> In http://fltk.org/str.php?L2205 I was suggested to make a code change in >> FLTK2, I did so and it compiles fine now. I am not sure of the root cause >> because fltk guys suggested that the problem is glibc-2.10 and pointed to >> patch but the patch looks to be incorporated in F-11 glibc. > > ?FLTK2 is giving some confusion even to FLTK developers: > http://fltk.org/newsgroups.php?s6818+gfltk.development+T1 > ("pre-release thread"). Yes. While I did not read the license yet, if Debian feels the fltk2 one is problematic, Fedora legal will feel probably the same (aka blocker). > > ?In a nutshell (from my point of view): > > ? * fltk2 is not officially released, and maybe never will. > ? * dillo2 uses fltk2, and this creates pressure to package it. > ? * Distros have a policy against statically-linked binaries. Definitely agree. The first and the second one can be somehow sorted out and fltk2 pushed to distribution, the last one is blocker. > ? * We can provide unofficial statically-linked packages until > ? ? the distro provides a shared fltk2 lib. > That's of course possible and doable but pita anyway. We can't ever make package for every distro out there, that's obvious. > ?So, I'd suggest to package a statically-linked binary until the > shared ?fltk2 ?is ?available from the distro. Once this happen we > can provide a dynamic one. > I can do F-11 builds if needed. > ?This ?avoids ?having to sort out the patching/adjusting problem > of packaging a shared library, which is best solved by the distro > itself. > > ?Now, ?it looks like you are the Fedora distro developer working > on ?both ?fltk2 ?and ?dillo2, ?so in this case you can decide and > suggest what looks best from your point of view. > I'm behind fltk2 in Fedora, Dillo is maintained by someone else but is prepared for bump to Dillo-2 (there's bugzilla for this) when is fltk2 in place... > ?From ?a user perspective, it looks simpler to download a single > binary ?and ?install it. If the shared way is decided, we need to > provide nutshell directions. I believe the simplest way for user how to get distro conforming packages is via distribution repositories (+ receives security, in-between-release problems solving, not necessary to check third party websites, etc). You greatly outlined the problems with having Dillo-2 in distribution; the problem is FLTK2. While watching at "changes" in FLTK2 snapshots I can't thing that the development is stalled or even stopped. I understand that my proposal won't be popular but switching from FLTK2 is necessary - we hardly have FLTK2 in distributions (read: no Dillo-2 in distribution) and that's shortening our user base. How hard it would be to rewrite/port Dillo-2 to FLTK-1.3? (I see that the speed of v1.3 development is nothing exciting, but from what I read months ago they at least plan to have a release ever.) While looking at the devel cycle of Dillo - two releases per year - I believe this porting should be mid-term goal. Unless we wanna spend another year out of mainstream distributions. (And frankly: even with Dillo-2 based on FLTK-1.3 we are quite far from Dillo-2 in distribution...) > > ?In ?the ?Debian ?case, I assume a statically linked deb will be > produced (until the license problem is solved). > > ?Comments? > > -- > ?Cheers > ?Jorge.- > > _______________________________________________ > Dillo-dev mailing list > Dillo-dev(a)dillo.org > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev >

June 18, 2009

dillo-2.1.tar.bz2

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:09:16PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Jorge wrote: > > I use "./configure --enable-ssl" bacause that way dillo is much > > more useful (mainly for reading forums and bug trackers). So I'd > > suggest to make the packages with SSL enabled, unless somebody > > reembers a compelling reason not to do so. > > > > There're times when the certificate asking dialog bombs the > > user, but maybe not so often, or annoyingly enough, to avoid the > > SSL dpi. > > > > Comments? > > iirc it stops giving you those messages if the dpi can find > a directory containing certificates, in which case the fact > that we don't check (I don't think we do, anyway) that the > server is presenting _its_ certificate is a problem. *Sigh* Well in that case, I assume that no SSL as default is OK. OTOH packagers may provide an enabled version with the warning that no certificates are being checked. -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 18, 2009

dillo-2.1.tar.bz2

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > I use "./configure --enable-ssl" bacause that way dillo is much > more useful (mainly for reading forums and bug trackers). So I'd > suggest to make the packages with SSL enabled, unless somebody > reembers a compelling reason not to do so. > > There're times when the certificate asking dialog bombs the > user, but maybe not so often, or annoyingly enough, to avoid the > SSL dpi. > > Comments? iirc it stops giving you those messages if the dpi can find a directory containing certificates, in which case the fact that we don't check (I don't think we do, anyway) that the server is presenting _its_ certificate is a problem.

June 18, 2009

dillo-2.1.tar.bz2

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 05:45:02PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:01:12PM +0200, Devid Antonio Filoni wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid(a)dillo.org> wrote: > > > Hi Michal, > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:11:44PM +0200, Michal Nowak wrote: > > >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Kelson Vibber<kelson(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > >> > Michal Nowak wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> I'd like to create Fedora RPM's (since I am Fedora packager), the > > >> >> problem is that fltk2 is not in Fedora (Package Review's pending [1], > > >> >> help welcomed), so, only unofficial packages are doable now. > > >> >> > > >> >> Problem with Fedora 11 is that fltk2 can't be built with recent g++ [2]. I > > >> >> might check with with F-10, it used to work. > > >> > > > >> > I've just built FLTK2 r6786 and Dillo 2.1 on a Fedora 10 system, so it does > > >> > work there. > > > > > > ?It's ?good ?to ?see ?you're ?already ?coordinating with Kelson, > > > because that's exactly what I was to suggest. > > > > > > > > >> In http://fltk.org/str.php?L2205 I was suggested to make a code change in > > >> FLTK2, I did so and it compiles fine now. I am not sure of the root cause > > >> because fltk guys suggested that the problem is glibc-2.10 and pointed to > > >> patch but the patch looks to be incorporated in F-11 glibc. > > > > > > ?FLTK2 is giving some confusion even to FLTK developers: > > > http://fltk.org/newsgroups.php?s6818+gfltk.development+T1 > > > ("pre-release thread"). > > > > > > ?In a nutshell (from my point of view): > > > > > > ? * fltk2 is not officially released, and maybe never will. > > > ? * dillo2 uses fltk2, and this creates pressure to package it. > > > ? * Distros have a policy against statically-linked binaries. > > > ? * We can provide unofficial statically-linked packages until > > > ? ? the distro provides a shared fltk2 lib. > > > > > > ?So, I'd suggest to package a statically-linked binary until the > > > shared ?fltk2 ?is ?available from the distro. Once this happen we > > > can provide a dynamic one. > > > > > > ?This ?avoids ?having to sort out the patching/adjusting problem > > > of packaging a shared library, which is best solved by the distro > > > itself. > > > > > > ?Now, ?it looks like you are the Fedora distro developer working > > > on ?both ?fltk2 ?and ?dillo2, ?so in this case you can decide and > > > suggest what looks best from your point of view. > > > > > > ?From ?a user perspective, it looks simpler to download a single > > > binary ?and ?install it. If the shared way is decided, we need to > > > provide nutshell directions. > > > > > > ?In ?the ?Debian ?case, I assume a statically linked deb will be > > > produced (until the license problem is solved). > > Yes, I preparated an FLTK2 Debian package and it is built as static > > lib but this should be avoided if possible, the problem is that fltk2 > > isn't stable enough so ATM it is static... The Debian license is the > > issue that doesn't allow me to upload the fltk2 (and also dillo2) > > package in Debian, there is an open bug about this > > (http://www.fltk.org/str.php?L2198+P0+S-2+C0+I0+E0+Qlicense) > > OK. > > BTW, the rc2 version of dillo-2.1 (hopefully final) was > just uploaded to http://www.dillo.org/download/ so packagers > can make the respective files. > > The idea is to make the announcement tomorrow in the morning. > > Devid: please send me the .deb and its directions when done. > > Same for rpm. Last but not the least. I use "./configure --enable-ssl" bacause that way dillo is much more useful (mainly for reading forums and bug trackers). So I'd suggest to make the packages with SSL enabled, unless somebody reembers a compelling reason not to do so. There're times when the certificate asking dialog bombs the user, but maybe not so often, or annoyingly enough, to avoid the SSL dpi. Comments? -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 18, 2009

dillo-2.1.tar.bz2

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:01:12PM +0200, Devid Antonio Filoni wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid(a)dillo.org> wrote: > > Hi Michal, > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:11:44PM +0200, Michal Nowak wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Kelson Vibber<kelson(a)pobox.com> wrote: > >> > Michal Nowak wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I'd like to create Fedora RPM's (since I am Fedora packager), the > >> >> problem is that fltk2 is not in Fedora (Package Review's pending [1], > >> >> help welcomed), so, only unofficial packages are doable now. > >> >> > >> >> Problem with Fedora 11 is that fltk2 can't be built with recent g++ [2]. I > >> >> might check with with F-10, it used to work. > >> > > >> > I've just built FLTK2 r6786 and Dillo 2.1 on a Fedora 10 system, so it does > >> > work there. > > > > ?It's ?good ?to ?see ?you're ?already ?coordinating with Kelson, > > because that's exactly what I was to suggest. > > > > > >> In http://fltk.org/str.php?L2205 I was suggested to make a code change in > >> FLTK2, I did so and it compiles fine now. I am not sure of the root cause > >> because fltk guys suggested that the problem is glibc-2.10 and pointed to > >> patch but the patch looks to be incorporated in F-11 glibc. > > > > ?FLTK2 is giving some confusion even to FLTK developers: > > http://fltk.org/newsgroups.php?s6818+gfltk.development+T1 > > ("pre-release thread"). > > > > ?In a nutshell (from my point of view): > > > > ? * fltk2 is not officially released, and maybe never will. > > ? * dillo2 uses fltk2, and this creates pressure to package it. > > ? * Distros have a policy against statically-linked binaries. > > ? * We can provide unofficial statically-linked packages until > > ? ? the distro provides a shared fltk2 lib. > > > > ?So, I'd suggest to package a statically-linked binary until the > > shared ?fltk2 ?is ?available from the distro. Once this happen we > > can provide a dynamic one. > > > > ?This ?avoids ?having to sort out the patching/adjusting problem > > of packaging a shared library, which is best solved by the distro > > itself. > > > > ?Now, ?it looks like you are the Fedora distro developer working > > on ?both ?fltk2 ?and ?dillo2, ?so in this case you can decide and > > suggest what looks best from your point of view. > > > > ?From ?a user perspective, it looks simpler to download a single > > binary ?and ?install it. If the shared way is decided, we need to > > provide nutshell directions. > > > > ?In ?the ?Debian ?case, I assume a statically linked deb will be > > produced (until the license problem is solved). > Yes, I preparated an FLTK2 Debian package and it is built as static > lib but this should be avoided if possible, the problem is that fltk2 > isn't stable enough so ATM it is static... The Debian license is the > issue that doesn't allow me to upload the fltk2 (and also dillo2) > package in Debian, there is an open bug about this > (http://www.fltk.org/str.php?L2198+P0+S-2+C0+I0+E0+Qlicense) OK. BTW, the rc2 version of dillo-2.1 (hopefully final) was just uploaded to http://www.dillo.org/download/ so packagers can make the respective files. The idea is to make the announcement tomorrow in the morning. Devid: please send me the .deb and its directions when done. Same for rpm. TIA. -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 17, 2009

dillo-2.1.tar.bz2

by devidfil＠gmail.com

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid(a)dillo.org> wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:11:44PM +0200, Michal Nowak wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Kelson Vibber<kelson(a)pobox.com> wrote: >> > Michal Nowak wrote: >> >> >> >> I'd like to create Fedora RPM's (since I am Fedora packager), the >> >> problem is that fltk2 is not in Fedora (Package Review's pending [1], >> >> help welcomed), so, only unofficial packages are doable now. >> >> >> >> Problem with Fedora 11 is that fltk2 can't be built with recent g++ [2]. I >> >> might check with with F-10, it used to work. >> > >> > I've just built FLTK2 r6786 and Dillo 2.1 on a Fedora 10 system, so it does >> > work there. > > ?It's ?good ?to ?see ?you're ?already ?coordinating with Kelson, > because that's exactly what I was to suggest. > > >> In http://fltk.org/str.php?L2205 I was suggested to make a code change in >> FLTK2, I did so and it compiles fine now. I am not sure of the root cause >> because fltk guys suggested that the problem is glibc-2.10 and pointed to >> patch but the patch looks to be incorporated in F-11 glibc. > > ?FLTK2 is giving some confusion even to FLTK developers: > http://fltk.org/newsgroups.php?s6818+gfltk.development+T1 > ("pre-release thread"). > > ?In a nutshell (from my point of view): > > ? * fltk2 is not officially released, and maybe never will. > ? * dillo2 uses fltk2, and this creates pressure to package it. > ? * Distros have a policy against statically-linked binaries. > ? * We can provide unofficial statically-linked packages until > ? ? the distro provides a shared fltk2 lib. > > ?So, I'd suggest to package a statically-linked binary until the > shared ?fltk2 ?is ?available from the distro. Once this happen we > can provide a dynamic one. > > ?This ?avoids ?having to sort out the patching/adjusting problem > of packaging a shared library, which is best solved by the distro > itself. > > ?Now, ?it looks like you are the Fedora distro developer working > on ?both ?fltk2 ?and ?dillo2, ?so in this case you can decide and > suggest what looks best from your point of view. > > ?From ?a user perspective, it looks simpler to download a single > binary ?and ?install it. If the shared way is decided, we need to > provide nutshell directions. > > ?In ?the ?Debian ?case, I assume a statically linked deb will be > produced (until the license problem is solved). Yes, I preparated an FLTK2 Debian package and it is built as static lib but this should be avoided if possible, the problem is that fltk2 isn't stable enough so ATM it is static... The Debian license is the issue that doesn't allow me to upload the fltk2 (and also dillo2) package in Debian, there is an open bug about this (http://www.fltk.org/str.php?L2198+P0+S-2+C0+I0+E0+Qlicense) > ?Comments? > > -- > ?Cheers > ?Jorge.- > > _______________________________________________ > Dillo-dev mailing list > Dillo-dev(a)dillo.org Devid > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev >

June 17, 2009

dillo-2.1.tar.bz2

by jcid＠dillo.org

Hi Michal, On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:11:44PM +0200, Michal Nowak wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Kelson Vibber<kelson(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > Michal Nowak wrote: > >> > >> I'd like to create Fedora RPM's (since I am Fedora packager), the > >> problem is that fltk2 is not in Fedora (Package Review's pending [1], > >> help welcomed), so, only unofficial packages are doable now. > >> > >> Problem with Fedora 11 is that fltk2 can't be built with recent g++ [2]. I > >> might check with with F-10, it used to work. > > > > I've just built FLTK2 r6786 and Dillo 2.1 on a Fedora 10 system, so it does > > work there. It's good to see you're already coordinating with Kelson, because that's exactly what I was to suggest. > In http://fltk.org/str.php?L2205 I was suggested to make a code change in > FLTK2, I did so and it compiles fine now. I am not sure of the root cause > because fltk guys suggested that the problem is glibc-2.10 and pointed to > patch but the patch looks to be incorporated in F-11 glibc. FLTK2 is giving some confusion even to FLTK developers: http://fltk.org/newsgroups.php?s6818+gfltk.development+T1 ("pre-release thread"). In a nutshell (from my point of view): * fltk2 is not officially released, and maybe never will. * dillo2 uses fltk2, and this creates pressure to package it. * Distros have a policy against statically-linked binaries. * We can provide unofficial statically-linked packages until the distro provides a shared fltk2 lib. So, I'd suggest to package a statically-linked binary until the shared fltk2 is available from the distro. Once this happen we can provide a dynamic one. This avoids having to sort out the patching/adjusting problem of packaging a shared library, which is best solved by the distro itself. Now, it looks like you are the Fedora distro developer working on both fltk2 and dillo2, so in this case you can decide and suggest what looks best from your point of view. From a user perspective, it looks simpler to download a single binary and install it. If the shared way is decided, we need to provide nutshell directions. In the Debian case, I assume a statically linked deb will be produced (until the license problem is solved). Comments? -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 17, 2009

dillo-2.1.tar.bz2

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:33:56AM +0000, corvid wrote: > I just remembered that the README needs to be updated > since it talks about all of the new things that 2.0 brought. I just updated the repo. Please give it a review and fix the grammar where necessary. The patch for working keyboard under numlock was also committed (overlooked by me). Those having trouble with rc1, please confirm the repo (rc2) works OK now. When I get both OKs, I'll upload a new tarball for making the respective packages. If there's anything else pending, speak now! -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 17, 2009