On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 09:39:17PM -0400, cga2000 wrote:
> 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(?)

The instructions were old. I've now updated them for Sarge.
Reload the URI above or see this for just the diffs:
<http://pasky.or.cz/gitweb.cgi?p=elinks.git;a=commitdiff;h=3b22a65ba94c53fad0600f5aa2cd97715c59360b>

> To recap,  the way I understand the new doc, what I should have done is:
> 
> $ apt-get libsmjs1 libsmjs-dev spidermonkey-bin spidermonkey-dev

spidermonkey-bin and spiderkmonkey-dev are unnecessary..

> $ 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?

Correct, except that it would be called libsmjs, not libjs.

> .. or did I also need to apt-get spidermonkey1? 

Nope.

> .. or would installing the two -dev packages have pulled all other
> necessary packages?

`apt-get install libsmjs-dev` is adequate.

> At least to me this is still not very clearly explained in the revised
> version of the ecmascript.txt document.

Is there anything more that should be clarified in the latest version?

> Anyway, just my 2cents.. 
> 
> Thanks

Thanks for your suggestions,

-- 
Miciah Masters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> / <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
elinks-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/elinks-users

Reply via email to