Here's what I've been doing... It saves a lot of space, especially
on the laptop.
--- from /etc/apache/srm.conf --
# So I can gzip the html files in "/usr/doc"
AddType text/x-html-gzip htmlgz
AddHandler x-html-gzip htmlgz
Action x-html-gzip /cgi-bin/zcat-html
AddType text/x-plain-gzipped
Hi,
>>"Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hamish> Consistency is to compress them -- we compress all other
Hamish> documentation in /usr/doc except the copyright files.
Not quite ;-). We definitely compress changelog.html. However,
we still do not compress multi-file
On Sun, Sep 13, 1998 at 09:30:41PM -0400, Justin Maurer wrote:
> i would definitley prefer one or the other. i think non-compressed is the
> way to go. consider this: slowe machines would crumble on unzipping larger
> files, but newer machines would have plenty of space. i really think we
> should
On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 1998 at 10:00:36PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > >
> > > So should we change i386-hurd to i386-gnu on the ftp archive? This would
> > > also express the explicit wish of Gordon, IIRC.
On Mon, Sep 14, 1998 at 10:00:36PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> >
> > So should we change i386-hurd to i386-gnu on the ftp archive? This would
> > also express the explicit wish of Gordon, IIRC.
>
> I don't think this is strictly necessary, it would
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 1998 at 05:24:25PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Zed Pobre wrote:
> >
> > > In the mean time, then, if I understand correctly, the only arch
> > > string that will allow proper compilation is "i386-gnu"?
> >
Hi,
>>"Zed" == Zed Pobre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Actually, so can lynx, MOzilla, netscape, and w3. I take back
>> my objection. I did not realize that all the html browsers too
>> transparently handle gzipped files
Zed> ? I have Netscape 4.06 installed on my box, and it refuses to
On Mon, Sep 14, 1998 at 05:24:25PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Zed Pobre wrote:
>
> > In the mean time, then, if I understand correctly, the only arch
> > string that will allow proper compilation is "i386-gnu"?
>
> Yes, because the gnumach kernel does only work under i
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Zed Pobre wrote:
> In the mean time, then, if I understand correctly, the only arch
> string that will allow proper compilation is "i386-gnu"?
Yes, because the gnumach kernel does only work under intel currently.
--
"136b152ac3c4c1d999f0afddbbb9c284" (a truly random si
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 13, 1998 at 07:57:48PM -0700, Guy Maor wrote:
> > > Compressed html changelogs:
> >
> > dwww deals transparently with compressed html files. Why can't
> > html changelogs be compressed then?
>
> Because dwww requires essentially apache, th
On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, Zed Pobre wrote:
> -:
>
> There have been three suggestions on this so far. Add "hurd" to the
> list of acceptable strings (currently the only acceptable one is
> "linux", add "gnu" to the list of acceptable strings, and for each
> current arch, add .
> My prefer
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh... then this is a new thing :) I maintain several packages that
> install their html documentation uncompressed, because compressed
> html was useless.
I've got compressed html in the libtiff3g directory, and I just
confirmed Manoj's findings - n
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because dwww requires essentially apache, though with effort it can work
> with other things.
It works with boa out of the box. boa is very light-weight.
Guy
Zed Pobre wrote:
> "Files" section:
>
> I left the files section as it was in the original proposal under
> the idea that a minimal set of changes was more likely to find
> agreement. Originally, the thought was to separate the issue of
> logfiles being a subsection of files rather than docum
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Guy> Zed Pobre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Compressed html changelogs:
>
> Guy> dwww deals transparently with compressed html files. Why can't
> Guy> html changelogs be compressed then?
>
> Actual
On Sun, Sep 13, 1998 at 07:57:48PM -0700, Guy Maor wrote:
> > Compressed html changelogs:
>
> dwww deals transparently with compressed html files. Why can't
> html changelogs be compressed then?
Because dwww requires essentially apache, though with effort it can work
with other things. Either w
> Proposal templates:
>
> As a sidenote, if anyone has an idea for templates for proposals, or
> a format that would make proposals more readable or in some other
> manner more aesthetic or easier to deal with than what I posted, I'd
> also like to know about it.
I would prefer if, instead of
Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Guy> Zed Pobre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Compressed html changelogs:
Guy> dwww deals transparently with compressed html files. Why can't
Guy> html changelogs be compressed then?
Actually, so can lynx, MOzilla, netscape, and w3
Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Zed Pobre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As a sidenote, if anyone has an idea for templates for proposals, or
> a format that would make proposals more readable or in some other
> manner more aesthetic or easier to deal with than what I posted,
Zed Pobre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Compressed html changelogs:
dwww deals transparently with compressed html files. Why can't
html changelogs be compressed then?
> As a sidenote, if anyone has an idea for templates for proposals, or
> a format that would make proposals more readable or
> Compressed html changelogs:
>
> If I understand correctly, Manoj's argument is basically that
> except for extreme circumstances, the lack of convenience in dealing
> with compressed html changelogs outweighs the size benefits. On that
> matter I don't really have a firm conviction one way
21 matches
Mail list logo
