> We're trying to move elinks out of the main repository and would like to > use w3m instead. You can a find both manual pages for comparison at: > * http://people.canonical.com/~mathiaz/mutt-manual/manual.elinks.html > * http://people.canonical.com/~mathiaz/mutt-manual/manual.w3m.html > > They look the same altough the html diff is quite huge. I haven't > investigate the actual differences. Another advantage is to drop one > part of the debian specific patch, since upstream already supports > building with w3m.
> --- a/doc/Makefile.am > +++ b/doc/Makefile.am > -@@ -100,9 +100,7 @@ uninstall-local: > - > - check: > - manual.txt: manual.html > -- -LC_ALL=C lynx -dump -nolist -with_backspaces manual.html > $@ || \ > -- LC_ALL=C w3m -dump manual.html > $@ || \ > -- LC_ALL=C elinks -dump -no-numbering -no-references manual.html | sed -e > 's,\\001, ,g' > $@ > -+ LC_ALL=C elinks -dump -dump-charset utf8 -no-numbering -no-references > $< > $@ That would need a Build-Conflicts against lynx so the build result is predictable. Also, I dislike the "-" before that line as it make failures non-fatal. I don't think we can drop that hunk completely. Besides that, I wouldn't oppose using w3m. Last time I checked, elinks looked nicer, but the difference wasn't huge. Btw, how do the the html links you posted prove anything? That patch is about the .txt version of the manual. Christoph -- c...@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
