[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: patch (was: Re: lynx-dev LYNXCFG:, LYNXCOMPILEOPTS:)

From: Klaus Weide
Subject: Re: patch (was: Re: lynx-dev LYNXCFG:, LYNXCOMPILEOPTS:)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 02:30:26 -0600 (CST)

On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Henry Nelson wrote:

> > > is the case. Futher documenting of 'g lynxcompileopts:' seems excessive.]
> >                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Except if there is an expectations that anyone should actually
> > do what the Configuration Definitions page says:
> > 
> >  "When reporting a bug, please include a copy of this page."
> In my tracking of the use of this, my record stands at 1 submission.

And it's a pleasure to see when it happens...

> It seems to me that even the developers prefer the output from trace.

It is different kind of information.

> Previously, Tom used to ask for people to send config.*, but of course
> those files are only available to the person who does the compiling.
> Should this line be deleted? 
> How useful is this information coming from a general user who has no idea
> what the output means? 

It is useful.  (Or better - it would be useful.)

> (I certainly didn't bother to translate it for our site.)

Why do you think it matters whether the user understands it?

> really want someone to send a copy of that page, I think you
> at least ought to suggest a way for them to do that, i.e., mention mailing
> from the P)rint Menu.  

Some users know how to do that, some don't.

> Do you really want a bunch of those coming to lynx-dev?

Why not?

> It might be more efficient to ask for the information that is pertinent.

I don't find it very efficient to repeat a simple question like
"Which version of lynx are you using?" again and again and again.
Or "Is you lynx compile with slang or curses" (which many users don't
know how to find out).


reply via email to

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