[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: lynx-dev userdefs.h vs config (was different)

From: Doug Kaufman
Subject: Re: lynx-dev userdefs.h vs config (was different)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 19:09:39 -0800 (PST)

On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Philip Webb wrote:

> to quote INSTALLATION (2-8-3dev.14):
> I. General configuration instructions (all ports).
> Step 1. (define compile-time variables  -- See the userdefs.h file.)

userdefs.h explains what the variables do. Read this to understand
which option you wish to choose.

>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     There are a few variables that MUST be defined, or Lynx will not build.
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is still true. It doesn't say whether you define them via the
configure script (go into lynx_cfg.h), or in userdefs.h.

>     There are a few more that you will probably want to change.  The variables
>                                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     that must be changed are marked as such in the userdefs.h file.  Just edit
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   ^^^^^^^^^
>     this file, and the changes should be straight forward.  If you compile
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     using autoconfigure, you can set most defines with option switches and do
>                                      ^^^^
>     not absolutely have to edit userdefs.h.  Many of the variables are now
>         ??????????                           ^^^^
>     configurable in the lynx.cfg file, so you may set them at run-time if you
>     wish.  

I think that this is still true. If you accept the defaults for the
options which aren't configurable via the configure script, then you
don't need to edit userdefs.h under unix or cygwin. Security related
settings may not be changeable in lynx.cfg.
> time somebody did an update patch?

I am not sure that the information is out of date. Which parts do you
think are subject to misinterpretation? Is it that you don't think
that the changes are really "straight forward"?
Doug Kaufman
Internet: address@hidden

reply via email to

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