[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev [PATCH][dev21] the binary size battle: disabling charsets
From: |
Bela Lubkin |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev [PATCH][dev21] the binary size battle: disabling charsets |
Date: |
Wed, 31 Mar 1999 16:20:32 -0800 |
Webmaster Jim wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 03:09:56PM -0800, Bela Lubkin wrote:
> > Klaus Weide wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Bela Lubkin wrote:
> >
> > > > I suggested what I still believe is a better path in this matter: make
> > > > the character sets dynamically loadable. The two defaults you've chosen
> > > > should probably continue to be hard-compiled in. That way a bare Lynx
> > > > binary which has become dissociated from its support files is still more
> > > > or less usable.
> > >
> > > Is it a good thing that a Lynx dissociated from its support files is still
> > > usable?
> > >
> > > Lynx intentionally refuses to work when it finds no configuration file.
> > > None of the lynx.cfg is really required for running: lynx -cfg=/dev/null
> > > runs.
> >
> > This was last discussed when Fote was still running the show. It seemed
> > to be a religious matter with him, so I didn't push my point of view. I
> > think that yes, it *is* a good thing that a bare Lynx binary can run.
> > As you say, nothing is actually needed from lynx.cfg. I often need an
> > ad hoc Lynx binary on a bare machine where I'm not root. I can copy the
> > binary over; I can't copy the support files into the compiled-in
> > locations they're expected to be in. I can dork around with environment
> > variables or flags. I don't *want* to. The only thing that prevents a
> > bare Lynx binary from running is its insistence on reading a file that
> > it doesn't need. Silly.
>
> Tip o' the day:
>
> lynx -cfg /dev/null .
Yes, as I quoted from Klaus's message; and as I said, ``I can dork
around with ... flags. I don't *want* to.''
I find it obnoxious that Lynx insists on a cfg file that it doesn't
need; obnoxious and of no benefit.
>Bela<