On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 07:23:45PM EDT, Miciah Dashiel Butler Masters wrote: [..] > > > > As a result I did a regular tarball install of spidermonkey. > > I replied to myself to clarify what I meant. Sorry for my initial > response and that you missed my correction. > > > [...] > > Thanks much for your patience. Where can I take a look at the updated > > ecmascript.txt..? > > http://pasky.or.cz/gitweb.cgi?p=elinks.git;a=blob;f=doc/ecmascript.txt > > There isn't really much to see--just a couple of short, new paragraphs. > $ apt-cache search spidermonkey
libsmjs-dev - Development files for the SpiderMonkey JS library libsmjs1 - The Mozilla SpiderMonkey JavaScript library spidermonkey-bin - Binaries of the SpiderMonkey interpreter spidermonkey-dev - Migration package for the SpiderMonkey JS library spidermonkey1 - Migration package for the SpiderMonkey JS library .. mind you, this is debian stable (sarge).. and since the ecmascript.txt document only mentions testing and unstable, it may still be necessary to do a tarball install of spidermonkey(?) To recap, the way I understand the new doc, what I should have done is: $ apt-get libsmjs1 libsmjs-dev spidermonkey-bin spidermonkey-dev $ cd ../elinks; ./configure; make; make install .. with the result that libjs lib would have been installed in /usr/lib/ .. this making a non-issue of my ldconfig problem, right? .. or did I also need to apt-get spidermonkey1? .. or would installing the two -dev packages have pulled all other necessary packages? At least to me this is still not very clearly explained in the revised version of the ecmascript.txt document. Anyway, just my 2cents.. Thanks cga _______________________________________________ elinks-users mailing list [email protected] http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/elinks-users
