Re: `boa' vs `apache', etc.
Hi,
I answer to some of Karl M. Hegbloom's comments:
--------
> (inside emacs), texinfo can be printed or made into info files...
> TeXinfo was designed by men who have studied and used computers for a
> long time.
And my proposal went over that precise line.
TeXinfo is a good format, and can be printed or made into info files so
let's have it in the binary package!!
Unless my proposal is accepted, you lose all advantages of TeXinfo,
except info itself, which (IMO) is the worst part.
--------
> Perhaps we can put together a minimal Apache for the base set,
> similar to how a minimal Perl is provided for it? It could be
> replaced by the full blown package at the installer's option.
>
That's a very good idea!!!
--------
> `gv' and alladin ghostscript rules! (And DEC SRC's Virtual Paper, if
> you own a Zip drive or have plenty of hard disk.)
>
I am glad your eyes are so healthy!!!
--------
> You don't know what you're talking about, IMO. I suggest you read
> the help and tutorial for using `info'. The interface is *not*
> "crappy". It is very powerful. Sometimes the keys seem a little odd;
I do know what I am talking about. I don't like info. You like it. Fine.
But if the default format is HTML then I should "win", because no info file
should be installed by default in my system. But HTML should be installed by
default in yours.
--------
> For some reason, serving gzipped files from `boa' (Version: 0.92-5)
> does not work, given mailcap entries that function fine with apache
> served documents. Can anyone verify this?
>
It works for me with boa 0.92-4
Maybe there is a bug in 0.92-5. I'm using the default configuration.
Maybe there is some nasty interaction between boa and apache if you have
both installed.
--------
> * `boa' /cannot/ be run from `inetd' or `xinetd' in its present
> incarnation.* It needs to have a configuration option added, like
> `apache' has, so that it will exit after serving a series of requests
True. But for a small system it is very fast. I have not tried apache. It might
be ok too. According to boa's documentation, apache takes twice the time boa
uses. In my 386 SX-25 that would mean 6 seconds instead of 3 seconds, which
is perfectly acceptable. Lynx takes 90 seconds so I wouldn't notice the extra
delay!! And formatting man pages takes even longer...
A networked system will either use Apache anyway or if they insist in Boa,
they would have to block access at the kernel level.
--------
> The *best* way to read info and manuals is inside XEmacs. :-) Try it
We are not talking about the best way, but a way that works in any system.
Emacs is not it.
--------
> No! You cannot just erase that directory if Emacs or XEmacs are
But you can erase the compiled info files and update the index.
That is what I meant.
--------
>
> (Koalatalk someday. ;-) )
>
What does that mean?
Thanks,
Fernando
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: