Subject: Re: elinks 0.9
To: Bruce J.A. Nourish <>
From: Michal Pasternak <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 01/04/2004 06:39:21
Bruce J.A. Nourish [Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:10:05PM -0700]:
> I made new package and submitted it to the maintainer on Boxing Day,
> but I have recieved no response. Therefore, I am making the package
> available at If someone
> wants me to put this in pkgsrc-wip, say the word, and I'll do it.

If you insist on a different name (and you tell that the package is
different in many means), I'd say import it under a different name.


>  * I've called the package "elinks09" as I think some people may not
>    like it (at least at first) and want to go back to elinks 0.4.5.
>    It is indeed a very different piece of software.

This is not a good practice to put version number in the name of the package.

You could call it "elinks-devel", but heck, 0.9 is called a "stable"
release, right?

I suggest a different name. I'd not put "09" in the name (unless some
pkgsrc-developer say it is okay)

>  * Lua support is now optional. Also, it is possible to build with
>    Lua 4 or Lua 5 (although I think some minor functionality is
>    unavailable with Lua 4). I chose 5, for that reason, because 4 
>    is unmaintained, and because several patches were neccesary to
>    make it work with 4.
>    If there is a demand, I'll make the Lua support conditional on
>    a build flag.

No, I think we can go without lua support (Python support is a must, but
lua? Who cares... :))). Seriously speaking, you can create "elinks"
including lua support and "elinks-nolua" without it.