- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

[Dillo-dev]src/IO/Makefile.in missing
by Peter Wiehe March 23, 2004

March 23, 2004

I tried to "./configure" dillo 0.8.0, but got this error: ... configure: creating ./config.status ... config.status: creating src/IO/Makefile config.status: error: cannot find input file: src/IO/Makefile.in Did this happen to other users (Dillo's fault)? Or is my Linux system messed up/my build tools have wrong versions (my fault)? If I would understand this autoconf stuff, I would know the answer and wouldn't bother You with this question. And if it's my system's fault, I don't expect You to help me out, of course. But maybe it's a Dillo bug? Kind regards Peter Wiehe

2 2

[Dillo-dev]Mozilla (was src/IO/Makefile.in missing)
by Peter Wiehe March 23, 2004

March 23, 2004

(I've taking the liberty to answer this private mail on the list. If that is against Your will, jump up and down and shout, and I will apologize.) > All of the above & I am not a programmer <grin>.. Thanks for the help especially as You aren't a programmer. IAAPBIHNCAAE I am a programmer but I have no clue about autoconf either :) I don't mean running ./configure but I mean writing/modifiying/understanding 'Makefile.in', 'depcomp', whatever. BTW I'm currently downloading Mozilla sources. Mozilla has definitively its good aspects. But the download says at the very start: 5.5 KB/sec :-) Time left 1 hour 15 minutes :-( 31380 KB :-o Anyone still believing Dillo is obsolete? ;-) Interesting to know that Internet Explorer and Mozilla use the same code base as ancestor! Did You know that? And I've taken a look at Zen another browser, circa the same size as Dillo. But Zen is unmaintained, C++ and most importantly, Dillo sources seem more nicely structured than Zen (from aesthetical and technical view). Kind regards Peter Wiehe

1 0

Re: [Dillo-dev]src/IO/Makefile.in missing
by Peter Wiehe March 22, 2004

March 22, 2004

On Monday 22 March 2004 00:39, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > * Peter Wiehe <peter_wiehe2004(a)yahoo.de> [03-21-04 18:34]: > > I tried to "./configure" dillo 0.8.0, but got this error: > > did you run 'autoconf' first ?? > I didn't. Docu gives the impression someone should and need not do this. I did it now. Have to update autoconf to 2.54+. If I have done so, the chances are good, that autoconf fixes my problem? > note: IANAP... I am not a person? Intel architecture notoriously abandons productivity? I ate Nachos and Pizza?

1 0

[Dillo-dev]Re.: /src/IO/Makefile.in missing/Dillo obsolete?
by Achim Woellgens March 22, 2004

March 22, 2004

Hi folks, well seems to be first kind of THAT kind of problems ; my compiling went very well, no probs even to more "exotic" installation pathes than usual ;-) so no Makefile missing..... and secondly Dillo is not obsolete because I still appreciate a small and FAST browser for surfing pages not overloaded with (java-) scripts or pictures till doomsday comes... so keep goin please, this thing is damn good so far... just waiting, what othere features will be included in he future, will be online banking possible one day? bye Achim dillo-dev-request(a)lists.auriga.wearlab.de wrote: >Send Dillo-dev mailing list submissions to > dillo-dev(a)lists.auriga.wearlab.de > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > dillo-dev-request(a)lists.auriga.wearlab.de > >You can reach the person managing the list at > dillo-dev-admin(a)lists.auriga.wearlab.de > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of Dillo-dev digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. src/IO/Makefile.in missing (Peter Wiehe) > 2. Re: src/IO/Makefile.in missing (Peter Wiehe) > 3. Re: src/IO/Makefile.in missing (Jorge Arellano Cid) > 4. Mozilla (was src/IO/Makefile.in missing) (Peter Wiehe) > 5. Re: src/IO/Makefile.in missing (Peter Wiehe) > >--__--__-- > >Message: 1 >From: Peter Wiehe <peter_wiehe2004(a)yahoo.de> >To: dillo-dev(a)lists.auriga.wearlab.de >Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:26:13 +0100 >Subject: [Dillo-dev]src/IO/Makefile.in missing > >I tried to "./configure" dillo 0.8.0, but got this error: > >=2E.. >configure: creating ./config.status >=2E.. >config.status: creating src/IO/Makefile >config.status: error: cannot find input file: src/IO/Makefile.in > >Did this happen to other users (Dillo's fault)? Or is my Linux system mes= >sed=20 >up/my build tools have wrong versions (my fault)? >If I would understand this autoconf stuff, I would know the answer and=20 >wouldn't bother You with this question. And if it's my system's fault, I=20 >don't expect You to help me out, of course. But maybe it's a Dillo bug? > >Kind regards >Peter Wiehe > > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 2 >From: Peter Wiehe <peter_wiehe2004(a)yahoo.de> >To: Patrick Shanahan <pat(a)wahoo.no-ip.org>, > dillo-dev(a)lists.auriga.wearlab.de >Subject: Re: [Dillo-dev]src/IO/Makefile.in missing >Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:47:27 +0100 > >On Monday 22 March 2004 00:39, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > > >>* Peter Wiehe <peter_wiehe2004(a)yahoo.de> [03-21-04 18:34]: >> >> >>>I tried to "./configure" dillo 0.8.0, but got this error: >>> >>> >>did you run 'autoconf' first ?? >> >> >> >I didn't. Docu gives the impression someone should and need not do this. >I did it now. Have to update autoconf to 2.54+. If I have done so, the=20 >chances are good, that autoconf fixes my problem? > > > >>note: IANAP... >> >> >I am not a person? Intel architecture notoriously abandons productivity? >I ate Nachos and Pizza? > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 3 >Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:56:54 -0400 (CLT) >From: Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid(a)dillo.org> >To: Dillo mailing list <dillo-dev(a)lists.auriga.wearlab.de> >Subject: Re: [Dillo-dev]src/IO/Makefile.in missing > > > >On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Peter Wiehe wrote: > > > >>I tried to "./configure" dillo 0.8.0, but got this error: >> >>... >>configure: creating ./config.status >>... >>config.status: creating src/IO/Makefile >>config.status: error: cannot find input file: src/IO/Makefile.in >> >>Did this happen to other users (Dillo's fault)? Or is my Linux system messed >>up/my build tools have wrong versions (my fault)? >> >> > > The file is in the tarball: > >-rw-r--r-- 1000/100 12293 2004-02-08 09:57:37 dillo-0.8.0/src/IO/Makefile.in > > but not in your HD... > > > >>If I would understand this autoconf stuff, I would know the answer and >>wouldn't bother You with this question. And if it's my system's fault, I >>don't expect You to help me out, of course. But maybe it's a Dillo bug? >> >> > > You're the first person to complain! > > If you took 0.8.0 from CVS, just run ./autogen.sh before ./configure > > Cheers > Jorge.- > > > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 4 >From: Peter Wiehe <peter_wiehe2004(a)yahoo.de> >To: Patrick Shanahan <pat(a)wahoo.no-ip.org>, > Dillo mailing list <dillo-dev(a)lists.auriga.wearlab.de> >Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 04:47:54 +0100 >Subject: [Dillo-dev]Mozilla (was src/IO/Makefile.in missing) > >(I've taking the liberty to answer this private mail on the list. If that= > is=20 >against Your will, jump up and down and shout, and I will apologize.) > > > >>All of the above & I am not a programmer <grin>.. >> >> >Thanks for the help especially as You aren't a programmer. > >IAAPBIHNCAAE >I am a programmer but I have no clue about autoconf either :) >I don't mean running ./configure but I mean writing/modifiying/understand= >ing=20 >'Makefile.in', 'depcomp', whatever. > >BTW I'm currently downloading Mozilla sources. Mozilla has definitively i= >ts=20 >good aspects. But the download says at the very start: >5.5 KB/sec :-) >Time left 1 hour 15 minutes :-( >31380 KB :-o >Anyone still believing Dillo is obsolete? ;-) > >Interesting to know that Internet Explorer and Mozilla use the same code=20 >base as ancestor! Did You know that? > >And I've taken a look at Zen another browser, circa the same size as Dill= >o. >But Zen is unmaintained, C++ and most importantly, Dillo sources seem mor= >e=20 >nicely structured than Zen (from aesthetical and technical view). > >Kind regards >Peter Wiehe > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 5 >From: Peter Wiehe <peter_wiehe2004(a)yahoo.de> >To: Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid(a)dillo.org>, > Dillo mailing list <dillo-dev(a)lists.auriga.wearlab.de> >Subject: Re: [Dillo-dev]src/IO/Makefile.in missing >Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 04:48:52 +0100 > >On Monday 22 March 2004 01:56, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > >> The file is in the tarball: >> >>-rw-r--r-- 1000/100 12293 2004-02-08 09:57:37 >>dillo-0.8.0/src/IO/Makefile.in >> >> but not in your HD... >>[...] >> >> >>>If I would understand this autoconf stuff, I would know the answer an= >>> >>> >d > > >>>wouldn't bother You with this question. And if it's my system's fault= >>> >>> >, > > >>>I don't expect You to help me out, of course. But maybe it's a Dillo >>>bug? >>> >>> >> You're the first person to complain! >> >> >I downloaded, extracted, read install and readme, then run ./configure. >So maybe it's lost at the download. Or maybe some of my software has a bu= >g >(I already have a candidate: Linux FAT-FS). But anyway it's my fault from= >=20 >Dillo's point of view. Because a file being no there which should be alre= >ady=20 >there, that would have lead to many reports. So I download it again.=20 >That should fix it. Thanks. > > > >> If you took 0.8.0 from CVS, just run ./autogen.sh before ./configure >> >> >No, wasn't from CVS. > >Kind regards >Peter Wiehe > > > >--__--__-- > >_______________________________________________ >Dillo-dev mailing list >Dillo-dev(a)lists.auriga.wearlab.de >http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev > > >End of Dillo-dev Digest > > >

1 0

[Dillo-dev]Re: pixmaps.netscape.h
by Jorge Arellano Cid March 15, 2004

March 15, 2004

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Erik Sittmann wrote: > Hello Jorge, Hi. > attached an updated 'pixmaps.netscape.h' for dillo-0.8.0. Oh, thanks. I just noticed the toolbar icons page was complitely out of sync. After some work, now all the icon sets are up-to-date. I didn't update the screenshots, though, but I'll gladly accept if someone volunteers to send me a package with an updated set of images (all with the same GTK+ theme please). Cheers Jorge.-

1 0

[Dillo-dev]Hello
by Diriel March 13, 2004

March 13, 2004

Hi Everyone, I heard of dillo recently when installing Gentoo linux. I was browsing their software. I am a Big fan of small efficient tools of most any kind. Dillo has definately made a fan of me. For daily usage I generally use FireFox, but when im setting up a box on very limited resources, generally I will set things up as lightweight as possible. A Big Thank You for Dillo. Ok, ill be good and stay on topic here on out /grin. Gary

1 0

[Dillo-dev]Re: dillo / fltk
by Jorge Arellano Cid March 12, 2004

March 12, 2004

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Matt wrote: > > Hi Jorge, Hi Matt! > > I just visited your dillo web pages (by a hint from the FLTK mailing > list) and I have to say, you guys got something great going there! Thanks. It's great you liked it because we could make it even better by porting to FLTK! > > I saw mentioned that you are checking the feasibility of using FLTK > (replacing or adding to gtk?). The idea is to replace GTK+. (In a nutshell, GTK2 got too big and slow to suit our needs). You can find interesting threads in our mailing list about the FLTK port issue. For instance, go to: http://www.dillo.org/search-dillo-dev.html And search for "FLTK" by "jcid" sorted by "Relevance". This will not only bring my posts but also the ones from Michael Sweet that I forwarded to dillo-dev. > FLTK on the other side is lacking a > good browser, or even just a browser interface. So I believe that > dillo/FLTK would be a great combination. Yes. The only thing that scared me a bit about FLTK's help viewer is that it is too slow, even for very simple pages. For instance vertical scrolling is much slower than what we get with GTK1 by now. Considering FLTK's reputation for speed, and after looking at the demo programs (as "scroll"), I feel it should be possible to improve page scrolling speed. > > Anyway, I am one of the FLTK core developers and cross platform porter, > and I would like to offer you my support in connecting FLTK and dillo. Excellent! Do you plan to work as an advisor, a porting core-developer or the port's leader? :) After reading Sebastian's comments, there seems to be no major obstacle to start the porting effort. What we'd need is to coordinate the communication of specific knowledge: Sebastian and Dw, me and network2parser and parser2widgets, you and FLTK. > Pleas let me know what you think, I think it's great to have one of the core developers of FLTK in the porting team! Technically, I see two ways of making the port: (I'll concentrate on the HTML rendering part because the UI port should be pretty easy in comparison). Rendering port alternatives: 1) Port Dw to FLTK 2) Make a pure FLTK widget tree (convert Dw into FLTK analogs) Maybe the first is easier in the short term, but I'd much prefer the second one because: * Having a custom widget system (Dw) that's embedded into FLTK and that also embedds native FLTK widgets is a very complex scenery that requires too much knowledge to work with (BTW that's what we currently have with Dw/GTK+). * If we can push the positioning/resizing/rendering complexity into FLTK's internal mechanism, it would simplify a lot the task (less complex algorithms, less code, less intertoolkit sync) * If we end we a pure FLTK tree (with its parser), it could be easily reused by the FLTK community, and this also leads to easier maintenance because more developers would be deploying it and helping to improve and fix bugs. One of the main points of Dillo's speed is streamed rendering. That is the ability to show the page as it is being constucted. I assume this is possible with FLTK. The way this works is by letting the parser to build the widget tree as it gets the HTML building blocks. By far, the most complex part is table rendering (because you don't know the table size in advance (i.e. each cell size). This means that cells start to resize and affect their rows and hence the table itself. OTOH, I have hopes in FLTK's internal mechanism. Fl_Group manual says: "It is possible to achieve any type of resize behavior by using an invisible Fl_Box as the resizable and/or by using a hierarchy of child Fl_Group's." and Michael S. wrote: <q> The current FLTK layout mechanism is infinitely flexible, but takes a little getting used to since there are no layout "hints", just resizeable widgets inside groups. In short, you group widgets (and sometimes create empty "box" widgets) to get the layout behavior you want. This is actually a lot faster than the older Motif-style layout stuff that GTK+ uses... There are specialized group widgets (Fl_Pack, Fl_Tile, etc.) that provide for special positioning/resizing capabilities separate from the user resizing the window. </q> So, the way I'd start is by trying to make a FLTK widget (set) that's able to draw generic HTML tables whose content is initially limited to be text only. This means, having HTML test files, a simple parser and the widget tree construction logic. When this is ready, images are added (images are a very good example of resizing cells). After that, a generic HTML content widget should be defined, and it would be a matter of adding support for the missing HTML elements (a much simpler task). In parallel with this last stage, Dillo's UI could be ported and finally merge both to have the first FLTK prototype of Dillo! Looking forward to hear from you Jorge.- PS: Feel free to forward this to the FLTK mailing list.

1 0

[Dillo-dev]dillo / fltk (fwd)
by Jorge Arellano Cid March 4, 2004

March 4, 2004

As you can see, my hopes for volunteers were heard! --Jorge ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 07:30:33 -0800 From: Matt <mm(a)matthiasm.com> To: jcid(a)dillo.org Subject: dillo / fltk Hi Jorge, I just visited your dillo web pages (by a hint from the FLTK mailing list) and I have to say, you guys got something great going there! I saw mentioned that you are checking the feasibility of using FLTK (replacing or adding to gtk?). FLTK on the other side is lacking a good browser, or even just a browser interface. So I believe that dillo/FLTK would be a great combination. Anyway, I am one of the FLTK core developers and cross platform porter, and I would like to offer you my support in connecting FLTK and dillo. Pleas let me know what you think, Matthias

1 0

[Dillo-dev]About proxy authorization && password storing
by Ivan Daniluk March 4, 2004

March 4, 2004

Hi, all! I use proxy server, that requires basic authorization. So, I wrote patch for dillo 0.8.0 that enables this feature. It's available on: http://dem2mpg.by.ru/dillo-0.8.0-proxy-auth.patch.gz Main question I would ask is about password storing. This patch just implements new dillorc option - "http_proxyauth", which is the string like "user:password". But, I guess, it's not correspond to dillo security policy, is it? Maybe, we should open popup dialogue and ask user for login/password? Regards! -- Ivan Daniluk, software developer, Ukrainian Computer Labs, Kiev, Ukraine mailto:Ivan.Daniluk@ucl.com.ua

2 1

[Dillo-dev]Re: Porting Dillo to FLTK
by Jorge Arellano Cid March 4, 2004

March 4, 2004

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Michael Pearce wrote: > Hello, Hi! > I see under your 'Future Goals' you mention: > > "Port dillo to GTK+2.0 or FLTK" > > I use FLTK for most of my linux gui program, but it is lacking a good HTML > rendering widget. It has a simple one used as a help browser, but it is no > where as advanced as Dillo. Yes, I tested it. The idea is to port our custom widget system (dw) to FLTK. > > I would like to look into porting dillos html parser & renderer to a FLTK > widget. Once this is done a full web-browser would not be difficut to > implement. If you could help us with it, it'd be great. At this point I'm waiting for the opinion of our main dw author and developer (Sebastian). As he knows dw's design by heart, he also knows best what are the harder issues of the port, what is required and what would be easy. He's also the one to tell us beforehand if something is not possible. The initial research on the current (and soon to be available) features of FLTK that we can benefit from is done. We even consulted with some FLTK developers; there's an interesting thread in our mailing list archives. So far it looks very promising. Appart from antialising, UTF-8, more portability, smaller size, postcript output, one of the key benefits we could get is to move rendering complexity into FLTK's layout system. That could simplify a lot the current dw implementation, making it easier to maintain and develop it further. Of course it will require quite an amount of work, but I suppose there will be enough people interested in helping us because it constitutes a quantum leap for the dillo project, and it would also be a big addition to FLTK. > Thankyou for the work that has gone into a clean, compact and useable > browser. Thanks for the recognition. It takes hard work to keep it that way! Cheers Jorge.-

1 0