[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Foteos Macrides
Subject: Re: LYNX-DEV Update code and patches "RFC" :)
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 14:09:43 -0500 (EST)

"Hiram Lester, Jr." <address@hidden> wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Oct 1996, Foteos Macrides wrote:
>>      I sent you replacement files for the Composite Patch which
>> encompass the numbered Patches 6-10, plus a bunch or other enhancements.
>> I didn't include the mod for making the User-Agent string an environment
>> variable because Netscape has threatened to sue developers who do that
>> or make the User-Agent string permanently configureable.  What we're
>> already doing via the 'o'ption menu is OK, and I don't think more than
>> that should be in distributed code.  I still disrecommend Patch 11.
>Ok, we should make just about everyone happy.  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.  The Sony news target still needs
such a subdirectory and Makefile.  Also, that BSDI_Makefile hack for the
library needs to be redone properly.

>                                         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

        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.

        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?

        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.


 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 address@hidden         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
; 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]