Re: links and elinks
Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> said:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:47:13 +0100, 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.
>
> Please point me to a links (not elinks) package that can do http auth
> (see #218450).
Are we about to list bug in elinks and links to determine which bugs
are the most painy? To me #186039 is way more annoying, and is not
a bug in removed code but a bug in existing code (The bug reporter
said: "I don't know what the exact semantics of are of an expiration
date in the past but perhaps they expect that to disable caching?": the
answer is yes, a date in the past is a way to avoid caching. That's
obvious, why an expired cache would used?).
I do not think that comparing bug list would help us much, as it
obvious that different users have different experiences and needs.
That's why I wrote, if I remember well, next to that paragraph you
quoted, it was very personal point of view.
--
Mathieu Roy
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| General Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org/ |
| Computing Homepage: http://alberich.coleumes.org/ |
| Not a native english speaker: |
| http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to: