[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: patch (was: Re: lynx-dev LYNXCFG:, LYNXCOMPILEOPTS:)
From: |
Henry Nelson |
Subject: |
Re: patch (was: Re: lynx-dev LYNXCFG:, LYNXCOMPILEOPTS:) |
Date: |
Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:26:51 +0900 (JST) |
> > It seems to me that even the developers prefer the output from trace.
>
> It is different kind of information.
My point was that developers invariably ask for trace output, but rarely
if ever ask for the LYNXCOMPILEOPTS page.
> > 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.)
You're the developer.
> > 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.
That's my point. Not everyone is running in an environment where they
can simply cut-n-paste. It is not realistic to expect someone to type
all that information, perhaps after first having to jot it all down.
> > Do you really want a bunch of those coming to lynx-dev?
>
> Why not?
Well, mine is 12 pages long. A lot of bug reports come in that are
obviously not of bugs, or are of bugs that have long been fixed.
> > 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
As usual, I didn't express myself well. I meant, could LYNXCOMPILEOPTS
be designed to answer just those questions you really want answered, like
version, compiler, curses, etc.? Would it be possible to find a subset
of compile options _essential_ to any debugging?
For example, out of:
RLOGIN_PATH "/usr/ucb/rlogin"
RM_PATH "/usr/bin/rm"
STDC_HEADERS 1
SYSTEM_MAIL "/usr/lib/sendmail"
SYSTEM_MAIL_FLAGS "-t -oi"
TAR_PATH "/usr/local/bin/tar"
TELNET_PATH "/usr/ucb/telnet"
TERMIO_AND_CURSES 1
TN3270_PATH "tn3270"
TOUCH_PATH "/usr/ucb/touch"
UNCOMPRESS_PATH "/usr/local/bin/gunzip"
UNIX 1
UNZIP_PATH "/usr/bin/unzip"
could you get by without the path definitions? Same question about
the path_* compile options. How about func_*, header_*, type_*?
I'm asking, not arguing. I think with a more focused and concise
LYNXCOMPILEOPTS page, the chances of getting it sent in would improve
considerably.
__Henry
- Re: patch (was: Re: lynx-dev LYNXCFG:, LYNXCOMPILEOPTS:), Henry Nelson, 1999/11/21
- Re: patch (was: Re: lynx-dev LYNXCFG:, LYNXCOMPILEOPTS:), Henry Nelson, 1999/11/21
- Re: patch (was: Re: lynx-dev LYNXCFG:, LYNXCOMPILEOPTS:),
Henry Nelson <=
- Re: patch (was: Re: lynx-dev LYNXCFG:, LYNXCOMPILEOPTS:), Henry Nelson, 1999/11/22
- Re: patch (was: Re: lynx-dev LYNXCFG:, LYNXCOMPILEOPTS:), Henry Nelson, 1999/11/23
- Re: patch (was: Re: lynx-dev LYNXCFG:, LYNXCOMPILEOPTS:), Henry Nelson, 1999/11/23
- Re: patch (was: Re: lynx-dev LYNXCFG:, LYNXCOMPILEOPTS:), Henry Nelson, 1999/11/24
- Re: patch (was: Re: lynx-dev LYNXCFG:, LYNXCOMPILEOPTS:), Henry Nelson, 1999/11/24