Re: w3m -> standard, lynx -> optional
Mateusz Papiernik <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
| 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outdated links and links-ssl packages could be removed and replaced by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
Hey, da ist ein Ballonautomat auf der Toilette!
Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest unstable _tin_