On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Kelson Vibber<kelson@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
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@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.-
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid@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@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@dillo.org
Devid
http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev
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@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@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.-
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@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@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.-
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.
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.-
On Jun 17, 2009, at 7:54 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
Well in that case, I assume that no SSL as default is OK.
So...no SSL for the official packages? I'll redo them. On that front, I haven't been able to get a Fedora 10 x86 LiveCD setup to install all the build requirements - it keeps crashing with I/O errors. I've been trying to set up a USB stick system, but it's the first time I've tried it and things don't seem to be working right. I've got the folowing: Fedora 10 x86_64 RHEL 3 i386 RHEL 4 x86_64 RHEL 5 i386 RHEL 5 x86_64 If anyone wants to try to build a matching RPM on Fedora 10 i686, here's the URLs to the sources... http://www.hyperborea.org/software/dillo/rpms/dillo-2.1-2.src.rpm (-3 once I turn SSL off again) http://www.hyperborea.org/software/dillo/rpms/fltk2-2.0.x.r6403-0.2.src.rpm And here's the list of build requirements I've found so far that aren't on the LiveCD yum install rpm-build openssl-devel gcc make automake automake17 automake16 automake15 libjpeg-devel libpng-devel zlib-devel xorg-x11- proto-devel libXft-devel libSM-devel libICE-devel libXt-devel libX11- devel libXi-devel libXinerama-devel libGL-devel libGLU-devel libXext- devel gcc-c++
Kelson wrote:
http://www.hyperborea.org/software/dillo/rpms/fltk2-2.0.x.r6403-0.2.src.rpm
We should use >= 6525
corvid wrote:
Kelson wrote:
http://www.hyperborea.org/software/dillo/rpms/fltk2-2.0.x.r6403-0.2.src.rpm
We should use >= 6525
Oops! Wrong link! That's what I used to build the 2.0 packages last October. I meant this one: http://www.hyperborea.org/software/dillo/rpms/fltk2-2.0.x.r6786-0.1.src.rpm -- Kelson Vibber Hyperborea.org - SpeedForce.org
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:00 AM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
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@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@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?
Generally speaking for Fedora, we won't turn on options which are not turned on by default in upstream - it usually brings divergence from upstream and comments in upstream mailing lists (not this one :) ) like: "That poor distroX turned on --enable-coolness so we are not supporting users of this distro at all." Turning on SSL in upstream means more pressure for fixing it, usually :). But I am reading dillo-dev long enough to know it's not that easy.
-- ?Cheers ?Jorge.-
_______________________________________________ Dillo-dev mailing list Dillo-dev@dillo.org http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev
Hi, Working on 2.- To enable-ssl or not enable-ssl (define what to do). On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:36:39AM +0200, Michal Nowak wrote:
[...] Generally speaking for Fedora, we won't turn on options which are not turned on by default in upstream - it usually brings divergence from upstream and comments in upstream mailing lists (not this one :) ) like: "That poor distroX turned on --enable-coolness so we are not supporting users of this distro at all."
Turning on SSL in upstream means more pressure for fixing it, usually :). But I am reading dillo-dev long enough to know it's not that easy.
Reading forums served on https is handy, so I understand if a user wants to have it enabled. Considering that making a user compile dillo is currently a complex operation (the apparently simple --enable-ssl switch is complex because of FLTK2 installation issues), I'd try to provide the packaged option as an alternative to the main package (not SSL-enabled). Something like: --------------------------------------------------------------- Debian: Jaunty, Karmic (click here) Fedora: F11, F12 (click here) --------------------------------------------------------------- With alpha HTTPS support: * Note that this is NOT checking certificates, may get stuck in asking dialogs, but will let you read https forums. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK Debian: Jaunty, Karmic (click here) Fedora: F11, F12 (click here) --------------------------------------------------------------- Obviously the safe option is not to offer ssl-enabled packages, but that will mainly have the effect of no https-dpi at all. I'm not quite sure which one would be best. Comments? -- Cheers Jorge.-
In Debian, the package in the repo is built with ssl enabled, I prefer to have the new package with ssl too. Is possible to just show a warning opening dillo? Devid On 6/18/09, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
Hi,
Working on
2.- To enable-ssl or not enable-ssl (define what to do).
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:36:39AM +0200, Michal Nowak wrote:
[...] Generally speaking for Fedora, we won't turn on options which are not turned on by default in upstream - it usually brings divergence from upstream and comments in upstream mailing lists (not this one :) ) like: "That poor distroX turned on --enable-coolness so we are not supporting users of this distro at all."
Turning on SSL in upstream means more pressure for fixing it, usually :). But I am reading dillo-dev long enough to know it's not that easy.
Reading forums served on https is handy, so I understand if a user wants to have it enabled.
Considering that making a user compile dillo is currently a complex operation (the apparently simple --enable-ssl switch is complex because of FLTK2 installation issues), I'd try to provide the packaged option as an alternative to the main package (not SSL-enabled).
Something like:
--------------------------------------------------------------- Debian:
Jaunty, Karmic (click here)
Fedora:
F11, F12 (click here)
--------------------------------------------------------------- With alpha HTTPS support: * Note that this is NOT checking certificates, may get stuck in asking dialogs, but will let you read https forums.
USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
Debian:
Jaunty, Karmic (click here)
Fedora:
F11, F12 (click here) ---------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously the safe option is not to offer ssl-enabled packages, but that will mainly have the effect of no https-dpi at all.
I'm not quite sure which one would be best. Comments?
-- Cheers Jorge.-
_______________________________________________ Dillo-dev mailing list Dillo-dev@dillo.org http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:12:12PM +0200, Devid Antonio Filoni wrote:
In Debian, the package in the repo is built with ssl enabled, I prefer to have the new package with ssl too. Is possible to just show a warning opening dillo?
Yes it is. You can add a warning in the splash page with HTML. Just try making some changes in IO/about.c See the attached page as an example. I'd prefer to have both and to offer as an option from the download page (as with Fedora). WARNING: Please don't make the packages yet, I've got a last minute security vulnerability email, so maybe the tarball will change once more (the last). I'll try to have this solved tomorrow in the morning. -- Cheers Jorge.-
On Jun 18, 2009, at 7:23 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
I'd prefer to have both and to offer as an option from the download page (as with Fedora).
So just to confirm, two dillo packages per OS version / architecture combination, one compiled with SSL, one compiled without?
WARNING: Please don't make the packages yet, I've got a last minute security vulnerability email, so maybe the tarball will change once more (the last). I'll try to have this solved tomorrow in the morning.
Okay, I'll wait until tomorrow before building anything else. The good news is I finally got Fedora 10 i686 running from a USB key, and was able to build the current package! So tomorrow I'll be able to build: Fedora 10 i686 and x86_64 RHEL 3 i386 RHEL 4 x86_64 RHEL 5 i686 and x86_64
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 07:43:15PM -0700, Kelson Vibber wrote:
On Jun 18, 2009, at 7:23 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
I'd prefer to have both and to offer as an option from the download page (as with Fedora).
So just to confirm, two dillo packages per OS version / architecture combination, one compiled with SSL, one compiled without?
That's the idea. Starting with the most used ones.
WARNING: Please don't make the packages yet, I've got a last minute security vulnerability email, so maybe the tarball will change once more (the last). I'll try to have this solved tomorrow in the morning.
Okay, I'll wait until tomorrow before building anything else.
The good news is I finally got Fedora 10 i686 running from a USB key, and was able to build the current package!
So tomorrow I'll be able to build: Fedora 10 i686 and x86_64 RHEL 3 i386 RHEL 4 x86_64 RHEL 5 i686 and x86_64
BTW, which is the easier way to install an rpm? Just download and "rpm -ivh <PKG>" or is there a ppa-like thing? -- Cheers Jorge.-
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 07:43:15PM -0700, Kelson Vibber wrote:
On Jun 18, 2009, at 7:23 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
I'd prefer to have both and to offer as an option from the download page (as with Fedora).
So just to confirm, two dillo packages per OS version / architecture combination, one compiled with SSL, one compiled without?
?That's the idea. Starting with the most used ones.
?WARNING: Please don't make the packages yet, I've got a last minute security vulnerability email, so maybe the tarball will change once more (the last). I'll try to have this solved tomorrow in the morning.
Okay, I'll wait until tomorrow before building anything else.
The good news is I finally got Fedora 10 i686 running from a USB key, and was able to build the current package!
So tomorrow I'll be able to build: Fedora 10 i686 and x86_64 RHEL 3 i386 RHEL 4 x86_64 RHEL 5 i686 and x86_64
?BTW, which is the easier way to install an rpm? Just download and "rpm -ivh <PKG>" or is there a ppa-like thing?
It's not that hard to create a repository with RPM packages but as I said it's generally bad thing to encourage users to use this as "repository", they would expect the same service like from general distribution distro (e.g. security fixes), which we don't wanna provide - because we believe Dillo2 in official distribution is The way. The `rpm -ivh <pkg>` is easy enough, I believe.
-- ?Cheers ?Jorge.-
_______________________________________________ Dillo-dev mailing list Dillo-dev@dillo.org http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Kelson Vibber<kelson@pobox.com> wrote:
On Jun 18, 2009, at 7:23 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
I'd prefer to have both and to offer as an option from the download page (as with Fedora).
So just to confirm, two dillo packages per OS version / architecture combination, one compiled with SSL, one compiled without?
?WARNING: Please don't make the packages yet, I've got a last minute security vulnerability email, so maybe the tarball will change once more (the last). I'll try to have this solved tomorrow in the morning.
Okay, I'll wait until tomorrow before building anything else.
The good news is I finally got Fedora 10 i686 running from a USB key, and was able to build the current package!
So tomorrow I'll be able to build: Fedora 10 i686 and x86_64 RHEL 3 i386 RHEL 4 x86_64 RHEL 5 i686 and x86_64
Just a comment: I'll be out for the whole weekend, if there's demand for Fedora 11 packages I'll create them Sunday evening or Monday morning.
_______________________________________________ Dillo-dev mailing list Dillo-dev@dillo.org http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
Hi,
?Working on
? ?2.- To enable-ssl or not enable-ssl (define what to do).
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:36:39AM +0200, Michal Nowak wrote:
[...] Generally speaking for Fedora, we won't turn on options which are not turned on by default in upstream - it usually brings divergence from upstream and comments in upstream mailing lists (not this one :) ) like: "That poor distroX turned on --enable-coolness so we are not supporting users of this distro at all."
Turning on SSL in upstream means more pressure for fixing it, usually :). But I am reading dillo-dev long enough to know it's not that easy.
[snip]
?Obviously the safe option is not to offer ssl-enabled packages, but that will mainly have the effect of no https-dpi at all.
?I'm not quite sure which one would be best. ?Comments?
http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/dillo2/static/ Looks like Kelson's having some problems with building, so I patched-rebuilt-installed Kelson's static FLTK2 SRPM and rebuilt Dillo2. Now there are present i586 pkgs for F-11, both SSL on/off, tomorrow I can build x86-64 pkgs for F-11 at work. And i386 packs for F-10 (hopefully there's still the F-10 beast in KVM). (But treat them as third party ones, don't trust them :). )
-- ?Cheers ?Jorge.-
_______________________________________________ Dillo-dev mailing list Dillo-dev@dillo.org http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:20:51PM +0200, Michal Nowak wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
Hi,
?Working on
? ?2.- To enable-ssl or not enable-ssl (define what to do).
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:36:39AM +0200, Michal Nowak wrote:
[...] Generally speaking for Fedora, we won't turn on options which are not turned on by default in upstream - it usually brings divergence from upstream and comments in upstream mailing lists (not this one :) ) like: "That poor distroX turned on --enable-coolness so we are not supporting users of this distro at all."
Turning on SSL in upstream means more pressure for fixing it, usually :). But I am reading dillo-dev long enough to know it's not that easy.
[snip]
?Obviously the safe option is not to offer ssl-enabled packages, but that will mainly have the effect of no https-dpi at all.
?I'm not quite sure which one would be best. ?Comments?
Good!
Looks like Kelson's having some problems with building, so I patched-rebuilt-installed Kelson's static FLTK2 SRPM and rebuilt Dillo2. Now there are present i586 pkgs for F-11, both SSL on/off,
BTW, is there a special instruction to install them on RPM systems? I mean something like adding a line to /etc/apt/sources.list in Debian.
tomorrow I can build x86-64 pkgs for F-11 at work. And i386 packs for F-10 (hopefully there's still the F-10 beast in KVM).
WARNING: Please don't make the packages yet, I've got a last minute security vulnerability email, so maybe the tarball will change once more (the last). I'll try to have this solved tomorrow in the morning.
(But treat them as third party ones, don't trust them :). )
What do you mean? -- Cheers Jorge.-
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 4:29 AM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:20:51PM +0200, Michal Nowak wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
Hi,
?Working on
? ?2.- To enable-ssl or not enable-ssl (define what to do).
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:36:39AM +0200, Michal Nowak wrote:
[...] Generally speaking for Fedora, we won't turn on options which are not turned on by default in upstream - it usually brings divergence from upstream and comments in upstream mailing lists (not this one :) ) like: "That poor distroX turned on --enable-coolness so we are not supporting users of this distro at all."
Turning on SSL in upstream means more pressure for fixing it, usually :). But I am reading dillo-dev long enough to know it's not that easy.
[snip]
?Obviously the safe option is not to offer ssl-enabled packages, but that will mainly have the effect of no https-dpi at all.
?I'm not quite sure which one would be best. ?Comments?
?Good!
Looks like Kelson's having some problems with building, so I patched-rebuilt-installed Kelson's static FLTK2 SRPM and rebuilt Dillo2. Now there are present i586 pkgs for F-11, both SSL on/off,
?BTW, is there a special instruction to install them on RPM systems? I mean something like adding a line to /etc/apt/sources.list in Debian.
tomorrow I can build x86-64 pkgs for F-11 at work. And i386 packs for F-10 (hopefully there's still the F-10 beast in KVM).
?WARNING: Please don't make the packages yet, I've got a last minute security vulnerability email, so maybe the tarball will change once more (the last). I'll try to have this solved tomorrow in the morning.
(But treat them as third party ones, don't trust them :). )
?What do you mean?
The point was that the packages are not signed, nor verified by independent authority [1]: just wanna to ask you *not* have the packages in the dillo.org web page directly but only as a separate link to third party directory/repository. -- [1] Just created by me with the best effort.
-- ?Cheers ?Jorge.-
_______________________________________________ Dillo-dev mailing list Dillo-dev@dillo.org http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:29:06PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
[...] WARNING: Please don't make the packages yet, I've got a last minute security vulnerability email, so maybe the tarball will change once more (the last). I'll try to have this solved tomorrow in the morning.
OK, the last tarball was just uploaded (rc3) and it will be announced tomorrow in the morning. It has a patch for malformed PNG images. Please make the respective packages and let me know when ready to link them from the downloads page. Here we go! -- Cheers Jorge.-
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 01:44:52PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:29:06PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
[...] WARNING: Please don't make the packages yet, I've got a last minute security vulnerability email, so maybe the tarball will change once more (the last). I'll try to have this solved tomorrow in the morning.
OK, the last tarball was just uploaded (rc3) and it will be announced tomorrow in the morning. It has a patch for malformed PNG images.
Please make the respective packages and let me know when ready to link them from the downloads page.
BTW, the announcement will be on Saturday 20's morning (UTC - 4). So there's still some time to finish the packages. Please make sure you have the last tarball by checking the signature, and let me know to update the linking page. TIA. -- Cheers Jorge.-
BTW, the announcement will be on Saturday 20's morning (UTC - 4). So there's still some time to finish the packages. Please make sure you have the last tarball by checking the signature, and let me know to update the linking page.
Sorry, I got mixed up over the timezone, or I would have posted the packages that were ready earlier instead of waiting until they were all done. I have RPMS for both Fedora 10 (both 32 and 64-bit), RHEL 3 (32bit), RHEL4 (64bit) and RHEL5 (32 and 64 bit), with and without SSL except for RHEL3. Location: http://www.hyperborea.org/software/dillo/
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Kelson Vibber<kelson@pobox.com> wrote:
?BTW, the announcement will be on Saturday 20's morning (UTC - 4). So there's still some time to finish the packages. Please make sure you have the last tarball by checking the signature, and let me know to update the linking page.
Sorry, I got mixed up over the timezone, or I would have posted the packages that were ready earlier instead of waiting until they were all done.
I have RPMS for both Fedora 10 (both 32 and 64-bit), RHEL 3 (32bit), RHEL4 (64bit) and RHEL5 (32 and 64 bit), with and without SSL except for RHEL3.
Sorry for the delay, my internet connection sucks, however you can find the Debian packages at the following links: Dillo: https://launchpad.net/~d.filoni/+archive/dillo Dillo+SSL: https://launchpad.net/~d.filoni/+archive/dillo+ssl Devid
_______________________________________________ Dillo-dev mailing list Dillo-dev@dillo.org http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Devid Antonio Filoni <devidfil@gmail.com>wrote:
find the Debian packages at the following links: Dillo: https://launchpad.net/~d.filoni/+archive/dillo<https://launchpad.net/%7Ed.filoni/+archive/dillo> Dillo+SSL: https://launchpad.net/~d.filoni/+archive/dillo+ssl<https://launchpad.net/%7Ed.filoni/+archive/dillo+ssl>
just for sid, not lenny/squeeze: depends on libxi6 1.2 http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=libxi6 -- SZERV?C Attila - zeneszerz? http://google.com/search?q=szerv?c <http://google.com/search?q=szerv%C3%A1c>
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 07:20:35PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 01:44:52PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:29:06PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
[...] WARNING: Please don't make the packages yet, I've got a last minute security vulnerability email, so maybe the tarball will change once more (the last). I'll try to have this solved tomorrow in the morning.
OK, the last tarball was just uploaded (rc3) and it will be announced tomorrow in the morning. It has a patch for malformed PNG images.
Please make the respective packages and let me know when ready to link them from the downloads page.
BTW, the announcement will be on Saturday 20's morning (UTC - 4). So there's still some time to finish the packages. Please make sure you have the last tarball by checking the signature, and let me know to update the linking page.
OK, the dillo-2.1 release announcement was submitted to freshmeat and the download page updated with the URLs of the latest packages. AFAIS everything is OK. Now I have to go out so if there's something missing in the website, please let Corvid or Johannes know here in dillo-dev. Great, let's hope for a good reception! -- Cheers Jorge.-
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 07:20:35PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 01:44:52PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:29:06PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
[...] ? WARNING: Please don't make the packages yet, I've got a last minute security vulnerability email, so maybe the tarball will change once more (the last). I'll try to have this solved tomorrow in the morning.
? OK, the last tarball was just uploaded (rc3) and it will be announced tomorrow in the morning. It has a patch for malformed PNG images.
? Please make the respective packages and let me know when ready to link them from the downloads page.
? BTW, the announcement will be on Saturday 20's morning (UTC - 4). So there's still some time to finish the packages. Please make sure you have the last tarball by checking the signature, and let me know to update the linking page.
?OK, the dillo-2.1 release announcement was submitted to freshmeat and the download page updated with the URLs of the latest packages.
?AFAIS everything is OK. Now I have to go out so if there's something missing in the website, please let Corvid or Johannes know here in dillo-dev.
?Great, let's hope for a good reception!
-- ?Cheers ?Jorge.-
_______________________________________________ Dillo-dev mailing list Dillo-dev@dillo.org http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev
FYI Static Fedora-11 i586 & x86-64 packages: http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/dillo2/static/F-11/ Michal
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 02:32:11PM +0200, Michal Nowak wrote:
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 07:20:35PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 01:44:52PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:29:06PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
[...] ? WARNING: Please don't make the packages yet, I've got a last minute security vulnerability email, so maybe the tarball will change once more (the last). I'll try to have this solved tomorrow in the morning.
? OK, the last tarball was just uploaded (rc3) and it will be announced tomorrow in the morning. It has a patch for malformed PNG images.
? Please make the respective packages and let me know when ready to link them from the downloads page.
? BTW, the announcement will be on Saturday 20's morning (UTC - 4). So there's still some time to finish the packages. Please make sure you have the last tarball by checking the signature, and let me know to update the linking page.
?OK, the dillo-2.1 release announcement was submitted to freshmeat and the download page updated with the URLs of the latest packages.
?AFAIS everything is OK. Now I have to go out so if there's something missing in the website, please let Corvid or Johannes know here in dillo-dev.
?Great, let's hope for a good reception!
-- ?Cheers ?Jorge.-
_______________________________________________ Dillo-dev mailing list Dillo-dev@dillo.org http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev
FYI
Static Fedora-11 i586 & x86-64 packages:
Good. It's linked from the downloads page. -- Cheers Jorge.-
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid@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@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@dillo.org http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev
Michal wrote:
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...)
It seems to be the consensus that going to 1.3 will happen eventually. They still have some work on UTF-8 to do first: http://svn.easysw.com/public/fltk/fltk/branches/branch-1.3/TODO.utf8 Out of curiosity, I once made a dillo that compiled with 1.3. It failed to work at all because I don't know the fltk and dw code well enough in general, but I was satisfied with getting an idea of how much there was to it. - We would have to get Johannes to do dw/fltkview*. - Fonts are a bit different. I didn't dig into that. - Menus are a bit different. Didn't dig into that either. - The PackedGroup for the UI behaved differently. I fought with it for a little while, then grew impatient. The rest was mostly changing a whole lot of fltk::something to Fl_something.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:27:20AM +0200, Michal Nowak wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
[...] ?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.
[...] 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.
You surely refer to the 1.3 series because FLTK2 is quite stalled. e.g. (nov 2008 version against current) diff -pru fltk-2.0.x-r6525 fltk-2.0.x-r6786|less /* Only whitespace and an email address change here! */ FLTK-1.3 is the active one (a fact recognized by Bill Spitzak).
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.
I agree on the shortened user base, but the proposal to switch to FLTK-1.3 is the probable course of action.
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.)
This branch has advanced a lot. It has less open bugs than FLTK-2.0 [1], an active set of developers, and they've devoted plenty of time to good documentation.
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...)
Some months ago I had long emails with FLTK developers regarding this point. FLTK-1.3 may have a release in the middle of 2009 and they may even consider a compatibility layer for FLTK-2.0 apps (for them, it would be a most appealing assset to have FLTK-2.0 apps. compile with FLTK-1.3 painlessly). Now, given the effort estimation by corvid, I'd go with a native port as soon as FLTK-1.3 is released (unless the compatibility layer is there, or porting turns out to be a major endeavour). If they succeed in an official release, chances are we'll have FLTK-1.3 in distros when we finish our port. BTW, their advice is to wait for the first release and then decide what to do. [1] http://fltk.org/roadmap.php -- Cheers Jorge.-
participants (6)
-
corvid＠lavabit.com -
devidfil＠gmail.com -
jcid＠dillo.org -
kelson＠pobox.com -
newman.x＠gmail.com -
sas＠321.hu