ITP: elinks (split links and elinks)
(This is really an Intent To Package [ITP] 'links', Intent To Rename [ITR]
'links' to 'elinks', Intent To Get Rid [ITGR] of 'links-ssl' and Intent To
Figure Out Whether 'links' with SSL Could Be Included Into Main
[ITFOWCBIIM].)
I'm the maintaner of the packages links{,-ssl}, which is a text mode browser
(as probably many of you already noticed) supporting plenty of interesting
stuff like colors, tables, frames, and so on. (Not ncurses, though, as some
around think.)
A while ago there were a fork from the original 'links' tree because the
development virtually stopped, bugs were not getting fixed, new features
were not included (despite the patches people submitted). I waited a while
but nothing happened (and the open bugs accumulated), so I decided to switch
over the fork which contained fixes and features, and what was named in the
meantime as 'ELinks' (enhanced links).
The 'links' development seem to be okay-like now, bugs actually get fixed.
In a recent discussion with ELinks' author we concluded that while the
codebase is of common roots, changing rapidly to make the gap wider between
the two versions, and it is not expected that the two version will ever get
closer to one another.
Links' goal is "stability without too much features", while ELinks favour
"bugs fixed and features implemented", like ipv6, cookies, bookmarks,
embedded programming language and more. I was politely asked by several
Debian developers to consider splitting these packages, and put they in
their respective packages where they belong.
Doing that raised another question which I am not able to answer due the
fuzzy discussions all around: can I discard 'links-ssl' (and possible
'elinks-ssl') and simply include SSL-enabled versions in main? There are
several SSL-enabled packages in main but the policy (as far as my eyes
serve me right) still seem to deny this. Anyone feeling authoritative
regarding this?
URL (for both): http://links.browser.org/
License: GPL
ps: only after woody released, I think.
pps: If you think this is all too simple, I'll share with you the fact that
links 2.xx will contain graphics and javascript support. But as far as I
see, it is going to be in the 'links' tree, without forking. Let us pray.
[this is a copy of the wnpp as I would like to get some input on the ssl in
main status. *sigh*]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: