Subject: Re: elinks 0.9
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Michal Pasternak <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/04/2004 07:09:24
Soren Jacobsen [Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:42:34PM -0800]:
> On 01/04 06:39, Michal Pasternak wrote:
> > 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.
> I don't think that's necessary. The l in 'lua' is for lightweight,
> after all. It's currently enabled unconditionally and no one seems to be
Not being an elinks user, I've obviously overlooked this:
As it seems to be important feature, it could be enabled unconditionally,
but OTOH people who need such lightweight browsers could use them on
really-low-RAM systems, where every byte does count (and availability of
binary packages is important).