Re: links and elinks
Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> wrote:
[...]
> I agree that links is a better choice. However, I think that links is
> a way better choice than elinks -- especially since the development
> made the last two years.
> I admit that's a very personal point of view.
> However, I'm a bit annoyed by the fact that the package links in
> debian is a package elink, leaving no room for the real links package,
> against which I would gladly fill an RFP (yes, I know, there's better
> to do than an RFP but that's all I can do about it for now).
> Or maybe I missed something?
#222373. (RFP)
#165276 by the (e)links maintainer
| Q: Will be package 'links' contain original code and not ELinks in main?
| A: Yes. Pending. Hold your breath. See links-ssl or elinks until then.
Although this bug is "pending" for a long time I would not give up
hope on this, the maintainer seems to quite responsive (I have
received an *immidiate* answer when I added a link to the RFP bug
#222373 to #165276 today.)
cu andreas
--
Hey, da ist ein Ballonautomat auf der Toilette!
Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest unstable _tin_
http://www.logic.univie.ac.at/~ametzler/debian/tin-snapshot/
Reply to: