Re: [Lynx-dev] How stable is 2.9.0?
>> The effort involved in a leap forward is rather high, though. > Unless [...], the effort should be small. Just `configure;make;make > install` (with a bunch of testing in between the two `make` steps, of > course). Where the effort lurks is in the step you've glossed over as "configure". I quite dislike the ./configure paradigm; my thoughts on the matter are in my blah post of 2009-11-20, available at http://ftp.rodents-montreal.org/mouse/blah/2009-11-20-1.html, in case you're interested in elaboration. (Its use of ./configure is one of the few things I definitely dislike about lynx.) The brief look I had at 2.8.9 makes me think it would be easier to configure it manually by editing the half-dozen files affected than to vet the configure script properly. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTMLmo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Re: [Lynx-dev] How stable is 2.9.0?
> > You should leap forward and then report any issues, so that they will > > cease being issues. > > My experience has been that my idea of an issue doesn't always line up > with a software project's idea of an issue. (But I do expect that the > two will line up better in lynx's case.) > > The effort involved in a leap forward is rather high, though. I don't > know how soon I'll find the round tuits for it. Unless you've linked your own C code into a mutant Lynx-relative binary, the effort should be small. Just `configure;make;make install` (with a bunch of testing in between the two `make` steps, of course). There shouldn't be breaking changes in command-line flags or anything like that which would mess you up... The 'bunch of testing' part must be where you've stashed all the negative tuits. But it should Just Work, so you start in on testing, go 'wow, this is a waste of time', install, and go from there... >Bela<
Re: [Lynx-dev] How stable is 2.9.0?
>> But a lot of development versions, especially for open-source >> software, are plenty usable enough. [...] So, my question is, is >> 2.9.0 in good enough shape that I should (FWVO "should") use it, or >> would 2.8.9 be better? > Thomas will be more modest, but basically every 'dev' release of Lynx > is rock steady [...] That does not surprise me. lynx appears to be done (what I consider) right in a lot of other respects; it is no surprise to hear that its release engineering is also done right. > Now if you are really leaping forward from a 1999 release, there may > be differences which bug you. There may indeed be. Right now I'm more interested in differences which _don't_ bug me, such as - I hope! - fixing the memory-management bugs I tripped over. (And, if it doesn't, then either I'll be able to contribute a fix or I'll have a test case I can pass off to someone who _can_ fix it.) > You should leap forward and then report any issues, so that they will > cease being issues. My experience has been that my idea of an issue doesn't always line up with a software project's idea of an issue. (But I do expect that the two will line up better in lynx's case.) The effort involved in a leap forward is rather high, though. I don't know how soon I'll find the round tuits for it. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTMLmo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Re: [Lynx-dev] How stable is 2.9.0?
Mouse wrote: > The lynx I've been using - 2.8, from 1999 - started exhibiting a > disturbing failure mode, today: I got "lynx in free(): warning: chunk > is already free.", indicating a memory-management bug, and, in at least > one session, got a coredump (ditto, but even more so). > > I could just treat this as a debugging exercise. But I wanted to at > least look at version-jumping instead. It appears to me that the > latest release is 2.8.9, with 2.9.0 being still in development > versions. But a lot of development versions, especially for > open-source software, are plenty usable enough. And I notice that > 2.9.0dev looks relatively stable; the last-change time I see is > 2021-08-07. So, my question is, is 2.9.0 in good enough shape that I > should (FWVO "should") use it, or would 2.8.9 be better? (Of course, > it's possible that either one has some property that will render it > unsuitable for my purposes, but I figured I should at least look into > it.) Thomas will be more modest, but basically every 'dev' release of Lynx is rock steady and might as well be released as a simple point release. Stability bugs are extremely rare. Now if you are really leaping forward from a 1999 release, there may be differences which bug you. You should leap forward and then report any issues, so that they will cease being issues. >Bela<
Re: [Lynx-dev] How stable is 2.9.0?
On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 07:21:17PM -0400, Travis Siegel wrote: > For what it's worth, I've been using 2.9.0 since version dev 5, and I've not > encountered any major bugs with it. I'm fairly confident it will be plenty > stable enough for your use. > > It's possible you'll find something else thatwon't do the trick for you, but > it's plenty stable enough for everyday use. > > > On 11/1/2022 11:00 AM, Mouse wrote: > > The lynx I've been using - 2.8, from 1999 - started exhibiting a > > disturbing failure mode, today: I got "lynx in free(): warning: chunk > > is already free.", indicating a memory-management bug, and, in at least > > one session, got a coredump (ditto, but even more so). > > > > I could just treat this as a debugging exercise. But I wanted to at > > least look at version-jumping instead. It appears to me that the > > latest release is 2.8.9, with 2.9.0 being still in development > > versions. But a lot of development versions, especially for > > open-source software, are plenty usable enough. And I notice that > > 2.9.0dev looks relatively stable; the last-change time I see is > > 2021-08-07. So, my question is, is 2.9.0 in good enough shape that I 2.9.0dev.10 is the latest development release: https://lynx.invisible-island.net/current/CHANGES.html#v2.9.0dev.10 There's a dozen commits past that https://github.com/ThomasDickey/lynx-snapshots but I'm busy with a different upgrade. The main difference between those is the number of platforms on which I've built/tested (snapshots, 2-3, development 5-10, release 25-30). ymmv > > should (FWVO "should") use it, or would 2.8.9 be better? (Of course, > > it's possible that either one has some property that will render it > > unsuitable for my purposes, but I figured I should at least look into > > it.) > > > > /~\ The ASCII Mouse > > \ / Ribbon Campaign > > X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org > > / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B > > > -- Thomas E. Dickey https://invisible-island.net ftp://ftp.invisible-island.net signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Lynx-dev] How stable is 2.9.0?
For what it's worth, I've been using 2.9.0 since version dev 5, and I've not encountered any major bugs with it. I'm fairly confident it will be plenty stable enough for your use. It's possible you'll find something else thatwon't do the trick for you, but it's plenty stable enough for everyday use. On 11/1/2022 11:00 AM, Mouse wrote: The lynx I've been using - 2.8, from 1999 - started exhibiting a disturbing failure mode, today: I got "lynx in free(): warning: chunk is already free.", indicating a memory-management bug, and, in at least one session, got a coredump (ditto, but even more so). I could just treat this as a debugging exercise. But I wanted to at least look at version-jumping instead. It appears to me that the latest release is 2.8.9, with 2.9.0 being still in development versions. But a lot of development versions, especially for open-source software, are plenty usable enough. And I notice that 2.9.0dev looks relatively stable; the last-change time I see is 2021-08-07. So, my question is, is 2.9.0 in good enough shape that I should (FWVO "should") use it, or would 2.8.9 be better? (Of course, it's possible that either one has some property that will render it unsuitable for my purposes, but I figured I should at least look into it.) /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
