- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

release candidate for dillo-3.0.2

by abe＠deuxchevaux.org

Hi, 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 fine as Debian package. IPv6 and HTTPS seem both to work independently, but HTTPS over IPv6 does not work. An example host would be the IPv6-only reachable server at https://jumper.deuxchevaux.org/. (Submitted to the bug database as bug #1023.) The same host with just HTTP (http://jumper.deuxchevaux.org/) works fine as well as does a randomly chosen (IPv4 :-) HTTPS website. OTOH with 3.0.1 it looks very similar and doesn't work either with IPv6 + HTTPS, so I think it's "just" a bug in Dillo, but not a regression in 3.0.2. :-) Otherwise 3.0.2 RC1 looks fine for me. :-) Kind regards, Axel -- /~\ Plain Text Ribbon Campaign | Axel Beckert \ / Say No to HTML in E-Mail and News | abe at deuxchevaux.org (Mail) X See http://www.asciiribbon.org/ | abe at noone.org (Mail+Jabber) / \ I love long mails: http://email.is-not-s.ms/ | http://noone.org/abe/ (Web)

Dec. 2, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.2

by corvid＠lavabit.com

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.

Dec. 2, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.2

by waltdnes＠waltdnes.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 :) > > If all goes well, the idea is to release on Monday... Building manually in 32-bit Gentoo. I'm building with a script like so... #!/bin/bash export CFLAGS="-O2 -march=native -mfpmath=sse -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe" ./configure --enable-ssl > log.txt 2>&1 make make install The CFLAGS line is copied straight from my /etc/make.conf. I notice something during the ./configure stage. Here's an excerpt from the ./configure output... 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? -- Walter Dnes <waltdnes at waltdnes.org>

Dec. 2, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.2

by onepoint＠starurchin.org

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 Works well here (Linux-3.1.0). Regards, Jeremy Henty

Dec. 2, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.2

by rogerx.oss＠gmail.com

> 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 :) > >If all goes well, the idea is to release on Monday... Compiles and executes fine here on P3 x86. No problems yet veiwing pages. -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/

Dec. 1, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.2

by corvid＠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...

Dec. 1, 2011

keysrc and prefix keys

by onepoint＠starurchin.org

I was thinking of implementing more of Firefox's key shortcuts in Dillo, namely Alt-<n> -> "Go to nth tab" for <n> = 1, 2, 3, ... 8 and Alt-9 -> "Go to last tab". (That last one would be really useful when I have more tabs open than will fit in the tab bar.) But then I thought "how do we configure this in keysrc?". The obvious solution is to add separate entries for each of the 9 commands. But this is clearly silly because no-one wants to use, say, Alt as the prefix for going to the 4th tab but Ctrl-Shift as the prefix for going to the 5th tab. Why should users have to add 9 entries to keysrc just because they prefer Ctrl-Shift to Alt? So I think we really want a single keyssrc entry that defines the modifier keys that bind the 1, 2, 3, ... 9 keys to the "Go to tab" commands. But this would significantly complicate the current code. Is it worth it? Regards, Jeremy Henty

Dec. 1, 2011

Search from location bar

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

Hi Stephen, On 11/29/11, Stephen Paul Weber <singpolyma at singpolyma.net> wrote: > Why are you proposing that the rc file be so complicated? It takes less > than 15 minutes to read through every single available option in the current > dillorc. I'm saying that the rc file is complicated because it is. Most people don't have the time to read through every single available option in an rc file, if they even know where to find it. Remember we're the minority on dillo-dev. We're more technically inclined than the average user; we're used to rc files, and we have enough interest (and time!) to do things the long way. But Joe Sixpack doesn't have time to read through a long text file to find a configuration option; he just needs a button he can click so he can change the setting and get back to his real work. > New users (in my experience) cannot find such buttons. Mostly because they > assume anything their program doesn't already do is "hard". So they call me > and then I have to find the button. > > Not that I'm saying there should not be a button, but I think the idea that > GUI configuration panes are "newb friendly" is a bit of wishful thinking. They aren't perfect, and I'm not claiming they are. But they're certainly an improvement. And if worst comes to worst, it's still easier to tell someone where to find a button to click than it is to explain the intricacies of a configuration file. GUIs are also more convenient, even for experienced users: rather than hunting through an rc file, you can just click a couple buttons, and you don't even have to restart the browser. For instance, I just used mine to change my user agent, since my university now apparently uses UA sniffing to throttle bandwidth. By the way, I have a GUI coded, but as with all my past contributions, it has consistently been silently ignored. But my own users seem quite happy with it -- at least the ones who realize it was my addition and have written to me about it -- so their loss, I suppose. >>"Darken white backgrounds" is better, because it recognizes this implied >>norm. The word "darken" also states a clear action, unlike -- for example >>-- "disallow." A user should never have to stop and think, "What does >>'Disallow white backgrounds' mean?" if there's a more obvious way to word >>it. > > I agree with this. Maybe even change it to a setting for *how much* to > darken. Maybe. "How much" is already determined by the bg_color option, so I see no need for a separate option. Personally, I *don't* think they should change the option name, because it would break backwards compatibility with previous versions. It's important to make things easy for new users, but it's just as important not to alienate existing users. That's why I won't upgrade Microsoft Office or The GIMP; both have redesigned so much I can't figure out how to work the latest versions. But you can still have a "Darken white backgrounds" GUI option while coding it internally as allow_white_bg=NO, as I have done. (My interface also sets bg_color appropriately either to white or tan.) That, I think, is an appropriate compromise, since you're breaking neither the existing code nor the poor user's brain. Cheers, ~Benjamin

Nov. 29, 2011

Search from location bar

by singpolyma＠singpolyma.net

Somebody claiming to be Benjamin Johnson wrote: >Roger wrote: >But imagine you're a new user and not really all that tech-savvy. Say >staring at white webpage backgrounds all day makes your eyes hurt. Would >you rather > > a) spend hours looking through a long configuration file looking for >an option to somehow darken them; or Why are you proposing that the rc file be so complicated? It takes less than 15 minutes to read through every single available option in the current dillorc. > b) click a button that says "Darken white backgrounds"? New users (in my experience) cannot find such buttons. Mostly because they assume anything their program doesn't already do is "hard". So they call me and then I have to find the button. Not that I'm saying there should not be a button, but I think the idea that GUI configuration panes are "newb friendly" is a bit of wishful thinking. >"Darken white backgrounds" is better, because it recognizes this implied >norm. The word "darken" also states a clear action, unlike -- for example >-- "disallow." A user should never have to stop and think, "What does >'Disallow white backgrounds' mean?" if there's a more obvious way to word >it. I agree with this. Maybe even change it to a setting for *how much* to darken. Maybe. -- Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma See <http://singpolyma.net> for how I prefer to be contacted edition right joseph

Nov. 29, 2011

Wikipedia pages

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 09:33:05PM +0100, Georg Potthast wrote: > Johannes, I did not see your post when I did mine since I just get > the posts once a day by email. Therefore I did not refer to your > post but made a general one. > > I now uploaded a snapshot of Firefox displaying the "Dillo" web site > on Wikipedia and three snapshots how Dillo does display it. As you > can see there a great differences. > > Regards > > Georg > > Firefox: > http://www.imgplace.com/viewimg716/298/93dillofirefox.png > > Dillo: > http://www.imgplace.com/viewimg502/3267/50dillo1.png > http://www.imgplace.com/viewimg710/2610/91dillo2.png > http://www.imgplace.com/viewimg525/8632/90dillo3.png Ok, that's all expected. No additional weirdness in your special setup. Regards, Johannes

Nov. 28, 2011