- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

release candidate for dillo-3.0.2

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 09:46:22PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Jorge wrote: > > AFAIR, libpng detection was an issue (not only for us), and it > > took a long time to come with something that worked across all > > the different platforms we were testing. > > What we can glean from good old CVS is: > > > In December 2004, the test changed from > which libpng12-config || which libpng-config || which libpng10-config > to a bunch of separate whiches because > "Fixed a libpng detection problem (e.g., on CYGWIN). BUG#651". > Of course, BUG#651 is long gone, but presumably the problem was the "||". > > > In January 2004, we go from > PNG_CONFIG="`which libpng-config || which libpng12-config`" > to > PNG_CONFIG=`which libpng12-config || which libpng-config || which libpng10-config` > (along with general restructuring) > Then if we follow that to the archive, > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2004-January/001683.html > the libpng talk is of Slackware 3.9, which came out in May, 1999. > A quoted msg from Jorgen doesn't appear to be in the archive. > > Looking at http://slackware.cs.utah.edu/pub/slackware/slackware-3.9/slakware/MANIFEST.… > Slackware 3.9 used libpng-1.0.3, and did not have a png-config of any > sort that I can see. > > Looking at the CHANGES file with my copy of libpng shows that png-config > showed up during the 1.2.x series. > > Earlier in January, > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2004-January/001615.html > says that libpng 1.2.5 needed to be added to the Slackware 3.9 system to > make dillo happy. > > Overall, the messages give every appearance of saying that dillo should > start with trying the libpng-config system but then still work on > systems that predate libpng-config. > > Looking at the change made, yeah, I guess that pre-libpng-config system > mustn't have had libpng stuff in the right places to get by with CPPFLAGS > as they were, hence added code that, if there was no libpng-config at all > and there was png.h, then add in 'LIBPNG_LIBS="-lpng -lm"' ourselves. > > libpng configuration checking was introduced in March 2003. > This leads back to > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2003-March/000390.html > where nothing brought up seems to have bearing on the matter at hand here. > > > Nothing reveals itself in the extant archaeological record suggesting > that the various libpng-configs themselves were an issue. Sorry if my meaning/wording wasn't clear. I meant, "it took some effort to sort the detection code so it finally was able to compile automatically accross all the different platforms we were testing" (some had libpng-config, some not, some had both installed at the same time IIRC). -- Cheers Jorge.-

Dec. 3, 2011

Dillo-dev Digest, Vol 76, Issue 1

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 09:11:48AM +0100, Georg Potthast wrote: > I observe that Dillo changes the current directory to "\tmp" when > running. Why does it do that and what files shall be written into > this directory? No files, Dillo tries to work from an unmounted directory. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Dec. 3, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.2

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 03:18:53AM +0000, corvid wrote: > > I just put up an rc at > http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-3.0.2-rc1.tar.bz2 > > $ sha1sum dillo-3.0.2-rc1.tar.bz2 > 1d1258ee7d18c8ca0eabaf100f2f611c6be03f87 dillo-3.0.2-rc1.tar.bz2 > > Please test :) I've being using it for a few days and it compiles and works very well on amd64 (x86_64 GNU/Linux). -- Cheers Jorge.-

Dec. 3, 2011

Dillo-dev Digest, Vol 76, Issue 1

by mailbox＠georgpotthast.de

I observe that Dillo changes the current directory to "\tmp" when running. Why does it do that and what files shall be written into this directory? Georg

Dec. 3, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.2

by furaisanjin＠gmail.com

Hi, I tried on FreeBSD 8.2. Compiling is OK and dillo works well. Regards, furaisanjin 2011/12/1 corvid <corvid at lavabit.com>: > > I just put up an rc at > http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-3.0.2-rc1.tar.bz2 > > $ sha1sum dillo-3.0.2-rc1.tar.bz2 > 1d1258ee7d18c8ca0eabaf100f2f611c6be03f87 ?dillo-3.0.2-rc1.tar.bz2 > > Please test :) > > If all goes well, the idea is to release on Monday... > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dillo-dev mailing list > Dillo-dev at dillo.org > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev

Dec. 3, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.2

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > AFAIR, libpng detection was an issue (not only for us), and it > took a long time to come with something that worked across all > the different platforms we were testing. What we can glean from good old CVS is: In December 2004, the test changed from which libpng12-config || which libpng-config || which libpng10-config to a bunch of separate whiches because "Fixed a libpng detection problem (e.g., on CYGWIN). BUG#651". Of course, BUG#651 is long gone, but presumably the problem was the "||". In January 2004, we go from PNG_CONFIG="`which libpng-config || which libpng12-config`" to PNG_CONFIG=`which libpng12-config || which libpng-config || which libpng10-config` (along with general restructuring) Then if we follow that to the archive, http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2004-January/001683.html the libpng talk is of Slackware 3.9, which came out in May, 1999. A quoted msg from Jorgen doesn't appear to be in the archive. Looking at http://slackware.cs.utah.edu/pub/slackware/slackware-3.9/slakware/MANIFEST.… Slackware 3.9 used libpng-1.0.3, and did not have a png-config of any sort that I can see. Looking at the CHANGES file with my copy of libpng shows that png-config showed up during the 1.2.x series. Earlier in January, http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2004-January/001615.html says that libpng 1.2.5 needed to be added to the Slackware 3.9 system to make dillo happy. Overall, the messages give every appearance of saying that dillo should start with trying the libpng-config system but then still work on systems that predate libpng-config. Looking at the change made, yeah, I guess that pre-libpng-config system mustn't have had libpng stuff in the right places to get by with CPPFLAGS as they were, hence added code that, if there was no libpng-config at all and there was png.h, then add in 'LIBPNG_LIBS="-lpng -lm"' ourselves. libpng configuration checking was introduced in March 2003. This leads back to http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2003-March/000390.html where nothing brought up seems to have bearing on the matter at hand here. Nothing reveals itself in the extant archaeological record suggesting that the various libpng-configs themselves were an issue. > I also recommend not doing this before the release. Yes, agrees.

Dec. 2, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.2

by singpolyma＠singpolyma.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Somebody claiming to be Johannes Hofmann wrote: >On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 01:01:37PM +0000, corvid wrote: >> I'm not aware of a reason why we can't rip out all of this libpng >> version stuff and make life better, but admittedly I'm not a libpng >> specialist. > >I would suggest we try to get rid of the version check after the >release. Are you just using a pkg-config check, or something uglier? - -- Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma See <http://singpolyma.net> for how I prefer to be contacted edition right joseph -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJO2SGhAAoJENEcKRHOUZzewZIP/2LTEN3gs2sLUtzQtrG8mmrR 8iH2uDi/es6FEhgat760jxE89a8mch75oJwcggJTW71ROIQr/MWPyO5TaWHuc+WS snNq5kEyZj6kqkSdP07P/XsgBgLH+Vq6HIH0JNnwGxVuliWPyFcD390wQmTAC15b pzIGXlRL0hgNOZ8fFo8z4r13OCsgOjBPIBnwGCVsXK4ogVRyjkG8JA4s4dbI9wnN SuLfTEkHD/K5xtROIipJpZQ2i+pPZEebZH41Sj3UlXmaksxdG/X6Y2oxW1w9c5qE Qu6B7GFrelA2cDmx/maZNSQOX5RVGrNuIlbVJRbwTy7IMwk3yaykiBQBkhARqRxx ZOL//ofTl2niQnhIMgCQKhKIlhVA4vZpjhgejFv0WGz5Ya8tsxB3DtvU7eDbSiVx dQvaZYPLfYDW27rXT7rsr6zjgyJw+9JnG/GPzjJXGS45oeGlBBPL9gkK93QXrCoU a0IHi4yZbSI86EGMOGZM7FxJO6/ucsJ5i/WNk/GA8fheWO5AfhhDWwiBFlzKUFTS u3QOsj2ukc9HAuMNnDjPI5Zs5W/BortSUPyqaPKktl6BKGLNpfrptkH0lEeHYaTZ rRN8PMVHVKpidGeeilD2y2I3nRu7UMxxvqMRO/0NdbXEfwjtb9R0PjHFJTO9gRc2 qjiZM+9hLrKpiJawU0+A =6u/F -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Dec. 2, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.2

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 01:01:37PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Walter wrote: > > checking for zlib.h... yes > > checking for zlibVersion in -lz... yes > > checking for libpng-config... which: no libpng14-config in > > (/root/bin:/root/bin: > > /usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/opt/bin:/usr/i686- > > pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.5.3) > > which: no libpng12-config in > > (/root/bin:/root/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin > > :/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/opt/bin:/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.5.3) > > /usr/bin/libpng-config > > checking for libpng version... ERROR > > checking openssl/ssl.h usability... yes > > checking openssl/ssl.h presence... yes > > checking for openssl/ssl.h... yes > > > > As near as I can tell, it's looking for either libpng12 or libpng14, > > but I have libpng15. Dillo builds and png support works, i.e. I can > > view png images. Maybe I'm picky, but I wonder about the message. Is > > it significant? > > So far as I know, it should be okay with 1.5. > > The last time I brought up 1.5 was in > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2011-May/008286.html > and no one replied. > > I'm not aware of a reason why we can't rip out all of this libpng > version stuff and make life better, but admittedly I'm not a libpng > specialist. AFAIR, libpng detection was an issue (not only for us), and it took a long time to come with something that worked across all the different platforms we were testing. If somebody is willing to change the detection code and go through the whole testing process of different libpng versions/scripts in old and new distros, so be it. I also recommend not doing this before the release. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Dec. 2, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.2

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 01:01:37PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Walter wrote: > > checking for zlib.h... yes > > checking for zlibVersion in -lz... yes > > checking for libpng-config... which: no libpng14-config in > > (/root/bin:/root/bin: > > /usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/opt/bin:/usr/i686- > > pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.5.3) > > which: no libpng12-config in > > (/root/bin:/root/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin > > :/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/opt/bin:/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.5.3) > > /usr/bin/libpng-config > > checking for libpng version... ERROR > > checking openssl/ssl.h usability... yes > > checking openssl/ssl.h presence... yes > > checking for openssl/ssl.h... yes > > > > As near as I can tell, it's looking for either libpng12 or libpng14, > > but I have libpng15. Dillo builds and png support works, i.e. I can > > view png images. Maybe I'm picky, but I wonder about the message. Is > > it significant? > > So far as I know, it should be okay with 1.5. > > The last time I brought up 1.5 was in > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2011-May/008286.html > and no one replied. > > I'm not aware of a reason why we can't rip out all of this libpng > version stuff and make life better, but admittedly I'm not a libpng > specialist. I would suggest we try to get rid of the version check after the release. Cheers, Johannes

Dec. 2, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.2

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 03:18:53AM +0000, corvid wrote: > > I just put up an rc at > http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-3.0.2-rc1.tar.bz2 > > $ sha1sum dillo-3.0.2-rc1.tar.bz2 > 1d1258ee7d18c8ca0eabaf100f2f611c6be03f87 dillo-3.0.2-rc1.tar.bz2 > > Please test :) Compiles and runs fine on DragonFly 2.13-DEVELOPMENT Cheers, Johannes

Dec. 2, 2011