Re: lynx-dev multiuser versus single user system use of lynx and configuration

[Leonid Pauzner]

27-Feb-99 06:53 Larry W. Virden wrote:

> Is there a strategy for determining what parameters are put into $HOME/.lynxrc
> versus only being in a lynx.cfg file?  On a single user system, the
> difference isn't all that big a deal - the user can quit lynx, edit the
> file, and start back up again.  On _some_ multi-user systems, the user
> can copy the site lynx.cfg file, edit it, and then start up with a command
> line argument.  On _closed_ multi-user systems, that's not an option.
                     ^^^^^^^^
on systems without a shell access there is no problem for users
whether to deal with lynx.cfg or ~/.lynxrc - both are hidden.
And with shell access you may include a local lynx.cfg copy
(yes, this need some manipulation but probably not so hard
for those who plan to read/change lynx.cfg)

> At least one criteria in my mind would be "is this a config option that a
> user might need/want to change during a specific lynx executable session" -
> since the user has no way of changing this value during a session unless
> the value is changable via the O option - and if it goes on that page, it
> probably should be storable (on user request) into $HOME/.lynxrc .

I think both criteria should give the same result (ideally) -
values "that individual users might have a reason to change"
should be available from O)ption menu
and .lynxrc list should be a subset of O)ption list
so we need not edit .lynxrc manually (unless someone want explicitely).

This still gives a wide choice and we have currently several exceptions.

> Another criteria would be "is this a value that individual users might
> have a reason to change".  That takes care of values that might not change
> a lot, but still need to be stored per user.  Things like email addresses,
> bookmark file names, etc. fall into this category.

> The specific parameter in particular I am struggling over is the
> accept all cookies parm.  It _seems_ to me this would be a parm of the
> second variety.  Some users want _no_ cookies ever.  Some users want some.
> Some users want all cookies accepted, regardless of the issue.  However,
> when I used the latest lynx to create a fresh lynxrc file, I don't see this
> parm in the lynxrc file.  I thought at one point it was supported there -
> but since I don't see it there I don't know if that's an oversight or a
> concious decision.

You probably lost something - there is an accept_all_cookies in dev17 lynxrc,
but no "ignore_all_cookies" - yes:(

> Is this a matter of waiting for some code to be submitted for this, or is
> it something that's being avoided?
> --
> Larry W. Virden                 <URL: mailto:address@hidden>
> <URL: http://www.purl.org/NET/lvirden/> <*> O- "No one is what he seems."
> Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should
> be construed as representing my employer's opinions.