Your message dated Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:14:54 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Your ITP of elinks (#149336)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 7 Jun 2002 19:52:51 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jun 07 14:52:51 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mail.interware.hu [195.70.32.130]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 17GPn1-0005Vr-00; Fri, 07 Jun 2002 14:52:51 -0500
Received: from kualalumpur-22.budaors.interware.hu ([195.70.62.150]
helo=sanctuary.grin.hu)
by mail.interware.hu with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian))
id 17GPmu-0005hL-00; Fri, 07 Jun 2002 21:52:45 +0200
Received: from grin by sanctuary.grin.hu with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 17GPGD-00049D-00; Fri, 07 Jun 2002 19:18:57 +0000
From: Peter Gervai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: wnpp: ITP: ELinks (after current Debian gets released) - split from
links{,-ssl}
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: bug 3.3.10.1
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: grin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 19:18:57 +0000
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(This is really an Intent To Package [ITP] 'links', Intent To Rename [ITR]
'links' to 'elinks', Intent To Get Rid [ITGR] of 'links-ssl' and Intent To
Figure Out Whether 'links' with SSL Could Be Included Into Main
[ITFOWCBIIM].)
I'm the maintaner of the packages links{,-ssl}, which is a text mode browser
(as probably many of you already noticed) supporting plenty of interesting
stuff like colors, tables, frames, and so on. (Not ncurses, though, as some
around think.)
A while ago there were a fork from the original 'links' tree because the
development virtually stopped, bugs were not getting fixed, new features
were not included (despite the patches people submitted). I waited a while
but nothing happened (and the open bugs accumulated), so I decided to switch
over the fork which contained fixes and features, and what was named in the
meantime as 'ELinks' (enhanced links).
The 'links' development seem to be okay-like now, bugs actually get fixed.
In a recent discussion with ELinks' author we concluded that while the
codebase is of common roots, changing rapidly to make the gap wider between
the two versions, and it is not expected that the two version will ever get
closer to one another.
Links' goal is "stability without too much features", while ELinks favour
"bugs fixed and features implemented", like ipv6, cookies, bookmarks,
embedded programming language and more. I was politely asked by several
Debian developers to consider splitting these packages, and put they in
their respective packages where they belong.
Doing that raised another question which I am not able to answer due the
fuzzy discussions all around: can I discard 'links-ssl' (and possible
'elinks-ssl') and simply include SSL-enabled versions in main? There are
several SSL-enabled packages in main but the policy (as far as my eyes
serve me right) still seem to deny this. Anyone feeling authoritative
regarding this?
URL (for both): http://links.browser.org/
License: GPL
ps: only after woody released, I think.
pps: If you think this is all too simple, I'll share with you the fact that
links 2.xx will contain graphics and javascript support. But as far as I
see, it is going to be in the 'links' tree, without forking. Let us pray.
:-)
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 149336-done) by bugs.debian.org; 28 Dec 2002 15:14:56 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Dec 28 09:14:56 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.141]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18SIfw-0002oY-00; Sat, 28 Dec 2002 09:14:56 -0600
Received: from localhost (ramstraat29.xs4all.nl [80.126.10.231])
by smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id gBSFEshV071434
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:14:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bas by localhost with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 18SIfu-0001QZ-00
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:14:54 +0100
From: Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Your ITP of elinks (#149336)
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:14:54 +0100
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0
tests=SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Hi!
This is a semi-automated message concerning your ITP of elinks.
The package elinks seems already to be in the archive.
Therefore, I'm closing this bug.
Kind regards,
Bas Zoetekouw.
