- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

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

dillo-2.1.tar.bz2

by newman.x＠gmail.com

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. 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. > > If you want to take a look, my SRPMS are available at > http://www.hyperborea.org/software/dillo/rpms/ > > The spec for FLTK2 is *very* rough, and the spec for Dillo has a lot of > cruft from back when I was maintaining packages for a bunch of different > distros. While looking at [1] it looks like you are using static archives (.a), while I turned on shared libs [2] option in FLTK2 and provide them instead. I fixed the remaining issues from package review [3], I guess FLTK2 might be in Fedora in near future. But now: FLTK2 packages for Fedora 10, 11, 12 (Rawhide) for ix86 and x86-64 ---> http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/fltk2/ Enjoy [1] http://www.hyperborea.org/software/dillo/rpms/fltk2-2.0.x.r6786-0.1.f10.x86… [2] http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/fltk2/ [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=fltk2 > > -- > Kelson Vibber > Hyperborea.org - SpeedForce.org > Michal

June 17, 2009

keyboard shortcuts non-functioning under KDE 3.5.10

by higuita7＠yahoo.co.uk

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:54:17 +0000, "corvid" <corvid(a)lavabit.com> wrote: > > > > > No keyboard shortcuts are working for me using KDE 3.5.10. > > i checkout the latest HG and i found that i also have this > > problem. > Does this > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2009-May/006378.html > make any difference for you? well... at least if i turn on the numlock, the key shortcuts start to work again. what a easy workaround :) after applying the email patch and rebuilding, i have the shortcuts working, with or without numlock on... so that patch fix this. Thanks! by the way, i also think that command=keybinding is more friendly, in a quick check we can see what are the actions available and their shortcut Thanks for dillo higuita -- Naturally the common people don't want war... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. -- Hermann Goering, Nazi and war criminal, 1883-1946

June 17, 2009