Re: release candidate for dillo-3.0.2

Jorge wrote:
>   AFAIR, libpng detection was an issue (not only for us), and it
> took  a  long  time to come with something that worked across all
> the different platforms we were testing.

What we can glean from good old CVS is:


In December 2004, the test changed from
which libpng12-config || which libpng-config || which libpng10-config
to a bunch of separate whiches because
"Fixed a libpng detection problem (e.g., on CYGWIN). BUG#651".
Of course, BUG#651 is long gone, but presumably the problem was the "||".


In January 2004, we go from
PNG_CONFIG="`which libpng-config || which libpng12-config`"
to
PNG_CONFIG=`which libpng12-config || which libpng-config || which libpng10-config`
(along with general restructuring)
Then if we follow that to the archive,
http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2004-January/001683.html
the libpng talk is of Slackware 3.9, which came out in May, 1999.
A quoted msg from Jorgen doesn't appear to be in the archive.

Looking at http://slackware.cs.utah.edu/pub/slackware/slackware-3.9/slakware/MANIFEST.gz
Slackware 3.9 used libpng-1.0.3, and did not have a png-config of any
sort that I can see.

Looking at the CHANGES file with my copy of libpng shows that png-config
showed up during the 1.2.x series.

Earlier in January,
http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2004-January/001615.html
says that libpng 1.2.5 needed to be added to the Slackware 3.9 system to
make dillo happy.

Overall, the messages give every appearance of saying that dillo should
start with trying the libpng-config system but then still work on
systems that predate libpng-config.

Looking at the change made, yeah, I guess that pre-libpng-config system
mustn't have had libpng stuff in the right places to get by with CPPFLAGS
as they were, hence added code that, if there was no libpng-config at all
and there was png.h, then add in 'LIBPNG_LIBS="-lpng -lm"' ourselves.

libpng configuration checking was introduced in March 2003.
This leads back to
http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2003-March/000390.html
where nothing brought up seems to have bearing on the matter at hand here.


Nothing reveals itself in the extant archaeological record suggesting
that the various libpng-configs themselves were an issue.


>   I also recommend not doing this before the release.

Yes, agrees.