[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