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

Re: w3m -> standard, lynx -> optional

Mateusz Papiernik <mati@maticomp.net> wrote:
> I agree, that lynx is somehow past thing, and is not really friendly to 
> the end-user. But why w3m, and not e.g. links (eLinks acctually)? 

BTW links/elinks/links-ssl is a mess *currently*, none of them seem to
be fit as default replacement for lynx.

* Links had its latest update in March (Policy 3.1.1).
* links-ssl must be removed (#171338 - The usual GPL/OpenSSL issue).
* links has become alive upstream again, let's call it links2.
  According to #165277 still without legal SSL. Not part of
  Debian and afaict _no_ _candidate_ for a lynx replacement, it is
  bound to be huge:
| Links is graphics and text mode WWW browser, similar to Lynx. It
| displays tables, frames, downloads on background, uses HTTP/1.1
| keepalive connections, and features Javascript. In graphics mode
| it displays PNG, JPEG, GIF, TIFF, and XBM pictures, runs external
| bindings on other types, and features anti-aliased font, smooth image
| zooming, 48-bit dithering, and gamma and aspect ratio correction.

* elinks. Currently huge because it links against X11, but according
  to Adam Borowski in #178038 this can be dropped without pain:
| > Hmm. IIRC X11 is only for changing the xterm's title?
| No, you don't need xlibs to detect xterm or _set_ the title.  The only
| thing elinks uses xlibs for is getting the original window title to
| restore it on exit.

If elinks dropped linking against X11, the basically unmaintained and
outdated links and links-ssl packages could be removed and replaced by
dummy-packages pulling in elinks. (Unless people want to keep this
namespace for the real links, if links2 is going to be included in
Debian, links-ssl will have to go nevertheless.).

Disclaimer: I do not claim that the maintainer does his job badly, as
I have not had any contact with him I lack any means of judging
                cu andreas
Hey, da ist ein Ballonautomat auf der Toilette!
Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest unstable _tin_

Reply to: