[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LYNX-DEV Update code and patches "RFC" :)

From: Hiram Lester, Jr.
Subject: Re: LYNX-DEV Update code and patches "RFC" :)
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 13:50:55 -0500 (CDT)

On Sun, 20 Oct 1996, Foteos Macrides wrote:

> >I'll add in the Makefile updates that just came in for m88k(?) as well. 
>       It should be set up with a separate WWW/Library/foo subdirectory
> for the objects, and an appropriate Makefile for the library in that, with
> a name perhaps more generic that m88k. 

From what I looked at the patch, it did just that.  The patch referenced a
generic makefile in lynx2-6/WWW/Library/unix/Makefile that said "Use this
as a template" and placed the modified version in
lynx2-6/WWW/Library/umaxv-m88k/Makefile.  The targets are called umaxv and
umaxv-slang.  Does that seem to conform to what you were thinking of?  The
only other mods were an ifdef block in tcp.h and the targets and their
descriptions in the top level Makefile.

> The Sony news target still needs such a subdirectory and Makefile. 
> Also, that BSDI_Makefile hack for the library needs to be redone
> properly. 

Didn't know about the Sony news one, but just this morning as I was going
through cleaning out my lynx-dev folder of patches that are included I
remembered one of the targets (the BSDI one) having a different makefile
structure.  Is that the only thing that needs to be done with it?  If so,
I can handle it easily. :)

> >What's the general feeling about updating the version string to 2-6-1?
>       I think it would be a counterproductive "convenience" at this
> time.  You'd be creating a new version without basic issues about how
> Lynx development will be handled effectively, and what the objectives
> and priorities will be, having been adequately discussed and clarified
> yet.

I'm not really sure I see what you're getting at.  Since this code is
primarily bug fixes for stuff that creeped into 2.6 (or has been lurking
there all along <g>), I see that at some point we should freeze it at a
2-6-1 as soon as the patches settle down and give a fixed platform from
which to base development on.  Otherwise it will be "2-6 is the latest
version, but be sure to get the 'service pack' (Microsoft...<g>) as well."
I see that as being even more confusing to have several versions of 2-6
running around that perform differently.

>       My predispositon is to keep up a Composite replacement file
> set for the "official" v2.6, and perhaps put out an "official" v2.7
> based on that when the "substantive development" issues are really
> squared away, since those can readily accommodate what's being put
> into the Composite.

Do you think that these patches are/will be a significant enough step up
to become 2.7?

>       Is there going to be an upgrade to, or at least substantive
> adaptation for, the v5 Reference Library?  Are we going to keep adding
> features that keep making the Lynx image bigger and bigger without any
> clear overview or set of criteria for assessing their relative importance,
> and how they affect Lynx users with limited resources?

I can't really answer that one.  I've been keeping an eye on my copy under
Slackware Linux 2.0.0 (ELF binary), and it's only grown about 2k or so
from my version with patches 1-5 and the nsl patch.  I do think that there
has been some evaluation of wwwlib5 and its possibility of drawing Lynx
closer to a DOS/Win32 port.  I'm not sure how much larger that wwwlib5 is
over our current one, but it would probably also make the step to HTTP/1.1
much easier.

>       It might be better for things to stay a bit fragmented and
> unclear, a while longer, while people are rolling up their sleeves and
> getting hands-on experience supporting Lynx, as well as direct feedback,
> themselves, on what they've contributed.

I think maybe I see your point a little, but the question becomes how far
do we let the unclarity (is that even a word? <g>) go before we stop it
and say "This is a release version and everything should be based on

   | Hiram W. Lester, Jr.               | E-Mail: address@hidden    |
   | Computer Science                   | Home page:                    |
   | Middle Tennessee State University  | |

; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]