- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

dillo-2.1.tar.bz2

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 05:24:25PM +0200, Devid Antonio Filoni wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid(a)dillo.org> wrote: > > [...] > > ?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. > DONE! You can find it at https://launchpad.net/~d.filoni/+archive/ppa > . However I found an error checking my package using lintian: > > E: dillo: possible-gpl-code-linked-with-openssl > N: > N: This package appears to be covered by the GNU GPL but depends on the > N: OpenSSL libssl package and does not mention a license exemption or > N: exception for OpenSSL in its copyright file. The GPL (including version > N: 3) is incompatible with some terms of the OpenSSL license, and therefore > N: Debian does not allow GPL-licensed code linked with OpenSSL libraries > N: unless there is a license exception explicitly permitting this. > N: > N: If only the Debian packaging, or some other part of the package not > N: linked with OpenSSL, is covered by the GNU GPL, please add a lintian > N: override for this tag. Lintian currently has no good way of > N: distinguishing between that case and problematic packages. > N: > N: Severity: serious, Certainty: wild-guess > > Can you please fix it? OK guys, don't hurry! ---------------------------------------------------- Let's make the announcement early this Saturday 20. ---------------------------------------------------- That way we have until tomorrow to sort out the packaging problem and this license issue. I'd proceed in this order: 1.- Solve the OpenSSL license issue and upload rc3. 2.- To enable-ssl or not enable-ssl (define what to do). 3.- Get to the less painful package-system for the user given the current situation. (most probably distribution repositories) 4.- Future planning: how to get dillo2 into distros to enlarge its user base. FLTK2 vs FLTK-1.3 * I have plenty of info here, but will hold on until the previous points are done. Thanks for all the help. -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 18, 2009

dillo-2.1.tar.bz2

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Kelson wrote: > http://www.hyperborea.org/software/dillo/rpms/fltk2-2.0.x.r6403-0.2.src.rpm We should use >= 6525

June 18, 2009

dillo-2.1.tar.bz2

by kelson＠pobox.com

On Jun 17, 2009, at 7:54 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > Well in that case, I assume that no SSL as default is OK. So...no SSL for the official packages? I'll redo them. On that front, I haven't been able to get a Fedora 10 x86 LiveCD setup to install all the build requirements - it keeps crashing with I/O errors. I've been trying to set up a USB stick system, but it's the first time I've tried it and things don't seem to be working right. I've got the folowing: Fedora 10 x86_64 RHEL 3 i386 RHEL 4 x86_64 RHEL 5 i386 RHEL 5 x86_64 If anyone wants to try to build a matching RPM on Fedora 10 i686, here's the URLs to the sources... http://www.hyperborea.org/software/dillo/rpms/dillo-2.1-2.src.rpm (-3 once I turn SSL off again) http://www.hyperborea.org/software/dillo/rpms/fltk2-2.0.x.r6403-0.2.src.rpm And here's the list of build requirements I've found so far that aren't on the LiveCD yum install rpm-build openssl-devel gcc make automake automake17 automake16 automake15 libjpeg-devel libpng-devel zlib-devel xorg-x11- proto-devel libXft-devel libSM-devel libICE-devel libXt-devel libX11- devel libXi-devel libXinerama-devel libGL-devel libGLU-devel libXext- devel gcc-c++

June 18, 2009

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