lynx-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: LYNX-DEV http://www.flora.org/lynx-dev/html/month0398/msg00120.html


From: T.E.Dickey
Subject: Re: LYNX-DEV http://www.flora.org/lynx-dev/html/month0398/msg00120.html
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:38:11 -0500 (EST)

>   I'm new to this reply-from-the-list-archive thing, sorry if this 
>   message is messed up looking.
> 
>  (Tom wrote:)
> >no problem - I'm looking for details.  The fix looks plausible (figuring
> >out the possible values from config.guess isn't easy except by running the
> >script on the right sort of box).  Comparing with the 9.05 config.cache,
> >I think you're right.
> 
> I added an "echo dink dink $host_os" (gimme a break, it was 3am) before 
> the case statement and confirmed that $host_os was set to "hpux10.20" on
> these machines.
ok (I put your change into my pending patch)
 
> libcur_colr is also a possibility, and also does not crash.  Should I try
> it with it checking for libcur_colr before it checks for libHcurses?
> If the configure script can detect whatever sort of color support that 
> libcur_colr has in it that would be good.  It might be weird and have
> incompatible color support, though.  I can work on this again tonight.
please do - if that works, I probably should reverse the order of that test
(cur_color or however you spell it - just looking now, it appears wrong in
my script - was described as COSE & XSI compliant - though it can't be the
latter since it's not named correctly).  It might be useful to know the
dates on the library files (to get a clue of which is a newer & presumably
more better-supported (I assume cur_colr).
> 
> >I was unable to use /bin/cc (K&R) because it did not parse the 'assert()'
> >statements in GridText.c (but someone reported no problem - perhaps it's
> >a missing patch to cc, or something like that).
> 
> We have the ``unbundled'' C compiler here which has ANSI mode (and 
> configure is smart and figures out the flags it needs for ANSI mode).
> It seems to work pretty well, whereas gcc for HP-UX has always seemed
> to have some compatibility problems...
right (I did not see any need for those 'snake' targets in the original
makefile)
 
> >I'd like to release it this weekend - so far we've found several minor
> >bugs (and become more aware of the design differences between 2.7.2 and
> >2.8pre).  If we go back & redesign before release, however, I don't believe
> >it'll be released.
> 
> Okay.  I'm in a software engineering class right now, and ``goldplating of
> requirements right before delivery date'' is something that has come up in 
> class as quite a bad thing.  Doing a release should add to the momentum
> here rather than slow it down.
that's much my attitude - deliver what you've agreed upon and followup
as time/energy permit with improvements.
 
> You do think you can incorporate this minor autoconf change, though, 
> right?
yes (will do that)

thanks
 
> Jonathan Sergent / address@hidden


-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
address@hidden
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey

reply via email to

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