Re: lynx-dev INSTALLATION file changes (was: Fix --disable-trace, #includes)

[Klaus Weide]

On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Henry Nelson wrote:

> > > ! Step 1. (define compile-time variables)
> [...]
> > > !   this file, and the changes should be straight forward.  If you compile
> > > !   using autoconfigure, you should set defines with option switches and 
> > > not
> > > !   edit userdefs.h directly.
[ ..... ]

> Tom, and others, could you comment on this "editing of userdefs.h" change.
> It was my impression that there WAS no longer a need to edit userdefs.h, and
> that some of you never do anymore.  Should I leave it the way it is, or
> should I make the change, but emphasize that if you don't edit userdefs.h,
> you absolutely must edit lynx.cfg?

I don't know whether the goal is to replace *all* userdefs.h settings that
are not just defaults for lynx.cfg stuff with ./configure flags.  It seems
a bit pointless to me.

But anyway, as things are currently it should be at least recommended
that people SHOULD look at userdefs.h, especially if they install lynx
for the first time (and are therefore most likely to read INSTALLATION).
If "some of us" never edit userdefs.h anymore, that would be (ideally)
only because we know what's in there, and have decided that we don't
need/want to make any change.

For the things that are just defaults for lynx.cfg stuff, the point could
be made that after setting up everything as wanted in userdefs.h, the
runtime lynx.cfg can then be shortened to near-nothing.

> > > ! Step 3. (You may skip this step if you use only English and are not 
> > > interested
> > > !     in any special characters, or if your display and local files will 
> > > all use
> >                                                                      ^
> >                                                 ...and all visited Web 
> > pages...
> > 
> > > !     the ISO-8859-1 "ISO Latin 1" Western European character set.) 
> > > People who
> 
> Would it work to be more general rather than define all situations, i.e.,
> 
> "You may skip this step if you use only English, are not interested
> in any special characters, and will only view documents in the ISO-8859-1
> (ISO Latin 1) Western European character set."
> 
> or even more simply,
> 
> "You may skip this step if you use only English."

I find that last one definitely too short - even people who "use only
English" can expect to see a copyright character as such etc.
They may even expect to see accents on French text correctly, although
they "use" only English.

Your first variant doesn't take care of French, German, etc. users
on completely ISO-8859-1 systems with Latin 1 displays - if they
fulfil all those conditions, they should be allowed to skip, too. :)
It also doesn't explicitly mention local files - they should be
mentioned since practically no DOS systems are set up for ISO-8859-1
(whether English-language or not).

I think the conditions SHOULD look a bit scary...

   Klaus