- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

Not to name dillo 1.3 & not to drop fltk 2.0 support
by darkspirit5000＠gmail.com Jan. 7, 2011

Jan. 7, 2011

Hello and happy new year. I want to suggest something for fltk 1.3 port. First. I think that to name dillo 1.3 vs dillo 2.0 is confusing. Dillo was 2.0 for a lot of changes (css, etc) one of them fltk port. Second. I want to suggest to not to remove the fltk 2.0 support code from dillo. DilloWidget support more than one "backend" so fltk 1.3 can be added whitout remove fltk 2.0 and selected at compile time or even runtime. Using 1.3 and compile time as sane defaults, of course. A test version that draw 2 windows aech one with a "backend" can ve used to compare visual results during the port to 1.3. To support 2 "backend" now can heltp to support others in the future. ?what about a directfb one? Debian instaler will thanks it even i them use X now. Sorry for my bad english Diego.

6 8

Copy and paste from page content area
by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com Jan. 7, 2011

Jan. 7, 2011

Was this ever implemented in the X11 version? I don't have access to a Unix box right now, otherwise I'd just test it myself. :-) ~Benjamin

3 4

configure.in
by corvid＠lavabit.com Jan. 6, 2011

Jan. 6, 2011

In configure.in, why is it LIBFLTK_LIBS=`fltk2-config --use-images --ldflags` if we use the system png/jpeg/etc. libraries and not the fltk ones? I just tried removing the --use-images argument, and everything still works for me.

2 2

[patch]: more configure.in cleanups
by onepoint＠starurchin.org Jan. 5, 2011

Jan. 5, 2011

Some more cleaning up of configure.in: Move AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM We should call AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM immediately after AC_INIT otherwise autoconf throws a warning "AC_ARG_PROGRAM was called before AC_CANONICAL_TARGET". (This was introduced by my previous configure.in patch, oops!) Remove AM_PROG_CC_STDC AM_PROG_CC_STDC has been folded into AC_PROG_CC . Amusing facts: * This removes 670 lines (~ 9%) from configure! * AM_PROG_CC_STDC is so obsolete it's not even mentioned in the current docs! I Googled an old version[1] to confirm that it's been obsolete since automake 1.8 (released 2003-12-10). After removing this macro, AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE is the only AM_* macro that Dillo uses. Remove AC_HEADER_STDC This isn't actually marked as obsolete but the manual[2] states: This macro is obsolescent, as current systems have conforming header files. New programs need not use this macro. The Dillo source does not use the variable STDC_HEADERS that AC_HEADER_STDC defines. Please comment. Regards, Jeremy Henty [1] http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/automake/automake_24.html [2] http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/html_node/Particular-Headers.ht…

3 7

Happy new year!
by jcid＠dillo.org Jan. 3, 2011

Jan. 3, 2011

Hi there, Please receive my best wishes and thanks to the team. Let's hope this year will help our project thrive again, in both the distros and the collaboration agreement we're trying to make. (-: 2011 :-) -- Cheers Jorge.-

3 2

[patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration
by onepoint＠starurchin.org Jan. 2, 2011

Jan. 2, 2011

Dillo's configure.in uses some obsolete autoconf/automake macros and calls some others in obsolete ways. This patch brings it (mostly) up to date. Any problems with this or shall I push it? Regards, Jeremy Henty References: AC_INIT autoconf manual: section 4.1: Initializing configure http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/html_node/Initializing-configur… AC_INIT (obsolete form) autoconf manual: section 18.4: Obsolete Macros http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/html_node/Obsolete-Macros.html AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE automake manual: section 6.4.1: Public Macros http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/automake/Public-Macros.html AM_CONFIG_HEADER (obsolete) automake manual: section 6.4.2: Obsolete Macros http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/automake/Obsolete-Macros.html

4 9

[jcid@dillo.org: Re: [Dillo-dev] [patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration]
by jcid＠dillo.org Dec. 30, 2010

Dec. 30, 2010

Just noticed I didn't replied this to the list (by mistake). -- Cheers Jorge.-

1 0

A question about the nature of this list
by mr_semantics＠hotmail.com Dec. 28, 2010

Dec. 28, 2010

Gentlemen,? Is it permissible to ask questions about odd dillo behavior on this list? ?I have a weird issue that I have not encountered before, and it is best "described" with a picture, but before I post anything, I want to ensure that it is ok to do so.? Regards, Rob Somers

3 5

FLTK 1.3.0 RC 1 released!
by jcid＠dillo.org Dec. 28, 2010

Dec. 28, 2010

Hi there, Good news, it looks as though FLTK-1.3.0 is close to an official release. This is an important fact because once dillo is ported to it, distros repos could carry dillo again. http://fltk.org/articles.php?L1028 -- Cheers Jorge.-

4 8

Re: FLTK 1.3.0 RC 1 released!
by rogerx.oss＠gmail.com Dec. 28, 2010

Dec. 28, 2010

Dunno about the *other* distros, but Gentoo has several versions of FLTK available including 2.0_pre branch. And, somebody has volunteered a FLTK-1.3_rc1 ebuild on bugs.gentoo.org. Dillo is extremely important on all my platforms as I use Intel P3 CPU's. Using any other browser, and I'm just wasting my CPU cycles with unneeded html scripts -- even with noscript & no-ads plugins for Seamonkey! Maybe hook-up with the FLTK mailing list to see if they're really going to push 1.3? From what I read a week ago, they're devoting all efforts on 1.3 and deprecated 2.0 branch. 2.0 branch might get it's features ported to 1.3. Cheers! -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/

2 1