- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

Repository branch name

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 10:17:33PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > Hi, > > Is there an easy way to rename the repo name from "dillo_port1.3" > to "dillo3"? I'd rather merge dillo_port1.3 over into our main repository, once dillo-2.2.1 is tagged and released. I can do that. Cheers, Johannes

July 17, 2011

release preparations (was Re: [Dillo-dev] Benchmark for web page rendering speed; dillo-svn vs dillo 2.2?)

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 09:45:14AM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 02:55:51PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 05:28:34PM +0000, corvid wrote: > > > Jorge wrote: > > > > I'm working on the tarball now: > > > > > > Oh, excellent! > > > > Ok, committed. > > > > The dates are left blank of course. > > Please check the splash page and correct my english. > > > > That should be it. I've not tested it though. > > Today I made some tests, and found that newer FLTK2 versions as > alpha-r8800, changed the internal API, rendering some parts of > dillo-2.2.1 unusable. (e.g. "Open file", Close dialog, Repost > dialog). > > fltk-2.0.x-r7513 works fine for me. > > The simple solution is to suggest a library version range in > the README. e.g. > > "The FLTK2 library is statically linked into Dillo2. > You can get it from fltk.org. > The recommended version is >= r6916 and <=r7513 > > http://fltk.org/software.php?VERSION=2.0.x-r7513" > > > Comments? I would simply give a known good revision of fltk2. Nevertheless we should let the fltk guys know about the incompatible changes. Cheers, Johannes

July 17, 2011

release preparations (was Re: [Dillo-dev] Benchmark for web page rendering speed; dillo-svn vs dillo 2.2?)

by jcid＠dillo.org

Hi there, Please report your OS/platform for dillo3 if not already listed in the compatibility page. TIA. -- Cheers Jorge.-

July 17, 2011

release preparations (was Re: [Dillo-dev] Benchmark for web page rendering speed; dillo-svn vs dillo 2.2?)

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > OK, does anybody see anything pending before packing dillo-2.2.1-rc1? > > (Yes, there're some web site updates pending, > I mean just inside the tarball). I just updated a couple of version numbers...

July 16, 2011

release preparations (was Re: [Dillo-dev] Benchmark for web page rendering speed; dillo-svn vs dillo 2.2?)

by jcid＠dillo.org

Hi, OK, does anybody see anything pending before packing dillo-2.2.1-rc1? (Yes, there're some web site updates pending, I mean just inside the tarball). -- Cheers Jorge.-

July 16, 2011

release preparations (was Re: [Dillo-dev] Benchmark for web page rendering speed; dillo-svn vs dillo 2.2?)

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:29:15AM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:45:14 -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid > > <jcid(a)dillo.org> wrote: > > > > >On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 02:55:51PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > > > > > Today I made some tests, and found that newer FLTK2 versions as > > >alpha-r8800, changed the internal API, rendering some parts of > > >dillo-2.2.1 unusable. (e.g. "Open file", Close dialog, Repost > > >dialog). > > > > > > fltk-2.0.x-r7513 works fine for me. > > > > > > The simple solution is to suggest a library version range in > > >the README. e.g. > > > > > > "The FLTK2 library is statically linked into Dillo2. > > > You can get it from fltk.org. > > > The recommended version is >= r6916 and <=r7513 > > Done. > > I also added a download link since older fltk-2.0 revisions are > no longer available from fltk.org. > > BTW, the recipe to build dillo in our web site was also updated: > > http://www.dillo.org/source.html I gave download.html its own copy of FLTK2 instructions since pointing people to the beginning of source.html is confusing for now.

July 16, 2011

release preparations (was Re: [Dillo-dev] Benchmark for web page rendering speed; dillo-svn vs dillo 2.2?)

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 22:48:25 -0400, Roger <rogerx.oss(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 08:09:57PM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: >> If the distributions wish to change things, that's their prerogative; I >> mean, Debian's constitutionally incapable of leaving upstream code >> unmolested, and I'm sure anyone else who maintains an ebuild/RPM/BSD >> port >> can figure out how to patch it back to do things their own way. At >> least >> you've made an attempt. It may work, it may not, but it's still better >> than doing nothing but whine about how no distributions will ship your >> code because of a trivially avoidable technicality. > > I was thinking of providing a --use-static-fltk configure option or > something. > > This way, when things do get stable, a distro can chose to build with > external > libs. I think most projects automatically use the system library if present, and fall back on the included one otherwise. We might take that a step further: use the system library if it's present and a sane version, otherwise fall back on our own. I forgot to mention, I'm running r7725 with a couple of my own patches on Windows (and have been for some time now), without problems. I could probably put together an updated FLTK "release" for the tarball, using that + working file dialogs from an older revision, if anyone's interested. ~Benjamin

July 16, 2011

release preparations (was Re: [Dillo-dev] Benchmark for web page rendering speed; dillo-svn vs dillo 2.2?)

by rogerx.oss＠gmail.com

> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 08:09:57PM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: >On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 19:52:03 -0400, Roger <rogerx.oss(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:29:15AM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: >>> >>> FWIW, those dialogs have always been broken on Windows. I basically had >>> to write my own Fl_Native_File_Chooser class (although Windows' dialogs >>> are much nicer than FLTK's, anyway). >>> >>> I'd say just include a "known good" FLTK2 release in the Dillo tarball, >>> and modify the build system to use that copy instead of the system one. >>> As an added bonus, it might make Dillo more attractive to Linux >>> distributions, since they don't have to add an unreleased dependency >>> library to include an up-to-date Dillo package. >>> >>> Just a thought, >>> ~Benjamin >> >> This then defeats the purpose of a source based distro such as Gentoo. > >It's a common enough trick -- OpenOffice.org does it, Audacity does it, >basically any big-name open source project you can think of includes at >least one dependency library in the stable tarballs because the upstream >developers can't keep a stable API or functional code longer than ten >minutes. I can't argue this one. FLTK has made their bed on this. :-/ >If the distributions wish to change things, that's their prerogative; I >mean, Debian's constitutionally incapable of leaving upstream code >unmolested, and I'm sure anyone else who maintains an ebuild/RPM/BSD port >can figure out how to patch it back to do things their own way. At least >you've made an attempt. It may work, it may not, but it's still better >than doing nothing but whine about how no distributions will ship your >code because of a trivially avoidable technicality. I was thinking of providing a --use-static-fltk configure option or something. This way, when things do get stable, a distro can chose to build with external libs. >~Benjamin

July 16, 2011

release preparations (was Re: [Dillo-dev] Benchmark for web page rendering speed; dillo-svn vs dillo 2.2?)

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:29:15AM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:45:14 -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid > <jcid(a)dillo.org> wrote: > > >On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 02:55:51PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > > > Today I made some tests, and found that newer FLTK2 versions as > >alpha-r8800, changed the internal API, rendering some parts of > >dillo-2.2.1 unusable. (e.g. "Open file", Close dialog, Repost > >dialog). > > > > fltk-2.0.x-r7513 works fine for me. > > > > The simple solution is to suggest a library version range in > >the README. e.g. > > > > "The FLTK2 library is statically linked into Dillo2. > > You can get it from fltk.org. > > The recommended version is >= r6916 and <=r7513 Done. I also added a download link since older fltk-2.0 revisions are no longer available from fltk.org. BTW, the recipe to build dillo in our web site was also updated: http://www.dillo.org/source.html -- Cheers Jorge.-

July 16, 2011

Repository branch name

by jcid＠dillo.org

Hi, Is there an easy way to rename the repo name from "dillo_port1.3" to "dillo3"? -- Cheers Jorge.-

July 16, 2011