On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 09:54:06PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Justus wrote:
Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 08:21:25PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Are "dillo1" and "dillo2" official names? If so, I'll add in some text to make it clear what's what.
They're not official, but good mnemonics!
When there was GTK1 dillo only, there was no confusion. Currently the CVS is using dillo-fltk, but I'd much prefer to have a binary named "dillo2".
Probably this is a good choice. Let's hear what dillo-dev people say. Here's the proposal:
* call the new binary "dillo2", and refer to the old 0.8.x series as dillo1.
I think it's problematic to have a digit in the official name (or in the name of the binary) since people will think it's the version. I'd suggest something along these lines:
* Dillo is the name of the brand * dillo2 is the codename for the fltk branch * for marketing reasons sell any snapshots / upcoming releases of that branch as the all new dillo version 2.x.y with tons of new features * the binary is called dillo (it's what people expect to type in to start the lightweight web browser thingie [at least I tried to run $PREFIX/bin/dillo a couple of times now...])
I also prefer to have a binary named dillo.
OK.
[...] (and dillorc2 -> dillorc)
We need a way to distinguish among the rc for dillo1 and dillo2. Currently you can have both dillo1 and dillo2 installed, sharing cookies and bookmarks (because we have a single ~/.dillo directory). Ideas are welcomed, including dillorc2 -> dillo2rc :-) -- Cheers Jorge.-