lynx-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: lynx-dev lynx2.8.2dev.25d-cpp.patch.gz


From: Henry Nelson
Subject: Re: lynx-dev lynx2.8.2dev.25d-cpp.patch.gz
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 09:39:55 +0900 (JST)

> > Nice. However, if this whole idea is to be useful to the people it is
> > intended for, the content must be meaningful to _them_.
> 
>   What do you suggest except removing something? 

I have not suggested the removal of anything in this present thread.
I suggest that if something is added, it ought to at least be meaningful
and useful to a large majority of users.

>   Just FYI, I compiled lynx with color-style, so it's really ignored.

Now if this kind of information were supplied, then I would agree that
there was some valuable added-on functionality, i.e., an analysis of
interactions between configuration settings, compile time defines and
run-time options.

> the way it was configured." I don't know how to paraphrase the 2nd sentence - 
> it means that this initializing the setting won't throw away the value it was
> assigned before - ie COLOR is like UPLOADER, aggregate assigned values (to be
> frankly, not exactly - it doesn't aggregate values in true sense). Anyway,
> we can remove this sentence.

No.  This is exactly the kind of thing you do not want to remove.  I want
you to explain what you are talking about in terms (I and) the ordinary
user will understand.  I am asking you to tell me something I don't know.
Just parroting back what is in the configuration file doesn't help me,
different format or not.

>    This can be useful for sysadms (they can't remember everything).

Consciencious sysadms will not have time to play with this.  They have
patches prepared against, or replacements for, all of the configuration
files at all stages from compiling to installation to invoking the binary.
They will spend a few minutes skimming through CHANGES to see if they
need to evaluate a new configuration parameter.  This is just a guess, but
I suspect that most sysadms who install Lynx do it as a service to their
clients, and are not devoted Lynx users themselves.

>  Information about default can be useful for other people (to analyze the

And I wish they would use the Internet for that, not my disk space:
     http://www.slcc.edu/lynx/current/lynx2-8-2/lynx.cfg
     http://www.slcc.edu/lynx/current/lynx2-8-2/userdefs.h

>   Values of "scalar" settings are overwritten after each assignment, so it's
> useful to have a trace of whether this setting was initialized. If you use
> 'INCLUDE' directive in your cfg.files, then you won't know definitely where
> (in which file) initialization happened.

I should have spoken up louder when the INCLUDE directive was stuck in,
but I guess it's "hold your peace" now.  I see a snowballing effect here:
the need for support functionality for already tacked on "luxury" items.

>  From my point of view, thing that is useful of part of the people, and not
> harmful for others, should be considered useful and worth including it in
> distribution. And you personaly, can don't install generated *.html files this
> patch adds, and don't visit LYNXSETTINGSTATUS://*. But let's think on 

I sort of feel like I'm embarking on a trip by foot across the Gobi and
this guy gives me a suitcase full of watches and tells me I can sell them
for a bundle when I get across the border.  Yeah, right.

Seriously, I wish YOU would "consider" maintaining the patch for your own
personal use.  I'm sorry to say that that is the conclusion of my evaluation.
I am just one of the few hundred involved in lynx-dev, so you can rest
assured that mine is not the final word.

__Henry

reply via email to

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