On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 04:39:53AM -0400, cga2000 wrote: > On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 01:42:29AM EDT, Miciah Dashiel Butler Masters wrote: > [..] > > > > No problem. > > > > The forgotten master session only explains one of the problems. I am > > still curious about how the configure script found SpiderMonkey, yet you > > had a binary that clearly was trying to link with a non-existent > > library. > > my *guess* is that elinks's configure script looks in all likely > places.. and this includes the /usr/local tree. > > > I still don't understand how /usr/local came into this--Debian > > packages should not store anything relevant under there. I'd like to > > understand these problems so that they might be avoided by other users. > > yes, but the libjs that elinks uses is not the standard debian lib.. > > I did a: > > $ find ../spidermonkey/js -name libjs.so -print > > .. and sure enough the lib is part of the sm tarball.. and the exact > same size as the one in /usr/local/lib (550,952 bytes). > > Now, since prior to make-ing spidermonkey I set the $PREFIX to > /usr/local - as specified in ecmascript.text, I would assume that this > caused all binaries that come with sm to be eventually installed in the > /usr/local tree.. including the libjs lib.
Are you saying that prior to installing the Debian package, you had built SpiderMonkey yourself and put it in /usr/local? > > In any case, have fun with ECMAScript! > > > Well.. that was pretty much what I was wondering earlier.. now it's > installed what good is it..? I mean in the real world.. I would imagine > that it should be transparent.. Stuff that didn't work before should > now work. I should have kept my prior version of elinks some place.. > continued using that until I ran into a "js disabled" problem and > switched to this version to see the difference. It's really very late > over here so I just can't think of any site where I tried to access some > gadget-y link and got denied with the previous version. But as far as I > can tell most pages seem to use js to add some gimmicky rendering stuff > that's not compatible with a text mode browser anyway.. so I'm not so > sure it's really going to make much difference. The support in ELinks is adequate for the occasional alert, ECMAScript-based redirect, some documents that use ECMAScript to manipulate forms or require ECMAScript to submit the forms, and some other small things that shouldn't require ECMAScript anyway. It is foremost the cool dynamic document manipulation that is not presently supported. There have been a few success stories, and if you have a particular site that doesn't work, you can report it on IRC or the list, and it is possible that we might be able to add the necessary capability, if it isn't said cool dynamic document manipulation stuff. -- Miciah Masters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> / <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ elinks-users mailing list [email protected] http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/elinks-users
