On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 10:58:43PM +0100, Michal Nowak wrote:
me at swva wrote:
I think I'm being unclear, in two ways.
Just to check, I did this as root :
[root@Hbsk2 btth]# rpm -q dillo dillo-0.8.6-7.fc9.i386 [root@Hbsk2 btth]# yum update dillo
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit updates-newkey | 2.3 kB 00:00 updates | 2.6 kB 00:00 fedora | 2.4 kB 00:00 Setting up Update Process No Packages marked for Update ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [root@Hbsk2 btth]#
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Johannes Hofmann wrote:
dillo-0.8.6 is no longer supported and you should consider to upgrade to dillo-2.0. But nevertheless for me it also works with dillo-0.8.6.
For those who run other OSs, what the emphasized lines mean is the 0.8.6 is what Fedora has, period. (I run F9, the latest release.) Any idea why it's so far behind?? I didn't realize 1.0 had become official, let alone 2.0
That's life. In Fedora, nor even Rawhide, isn't Dillo v2.0. Two reasons:
1) No one packed FLTK 2.x, check repository there's still 1.1.9. 2) Because of (1) no Dillo 2.
Although Fedora is usually fresh, in case of Dillo it's still on Dillo 0.8.6 mainline. Feel free to file bug (bugzilla.redhat.com) against Dillo and Package Review for FLTK2, but be aware that having unstable FLTK 2.x in Fedora might be quite fight. (Believe me I am Fedora packager.)
Dillo2 doesn't need an FLTK2 package installed! It can be statically linked in. One package, that's it. (this is the default BTW). Now, if distros need to also provide source packages by policy, then that's a different story. Please clarify me because I've read that complaint a few times, and don't yet know whether it's my fault not making the statical linking clear enough to packagers, or if there's a packaging policy issue I don't know of. :) -- Cheers Jorge.-