Subject: UPDATE: deb-view.el 1.2: emacs tool for browsing deb files!

From: Rick Macdonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 16:25:50 -0600 (MDT)

I've updated deb-view.el to handle viewing html files with w3-mode.

w3 can be found via anonymous ftp to ftp.cs.indiana.edu:/pub/elisp/w3.
For use within deb-view, I didn't need to install the "extras" or
"icons" that w3 recommends.

I had considered something special for INFO files, but info files are
pretty well readable as-is so it wasn't worth the effort.

Here is a shortened version of my original announcement:

I've written a tool for emacs that allows one to browse deb files.
It's nice to peek at a package file and read the doc, man pages,
html files, install scripts, file list, etc, without installing it first.
You can even copy files out of a deb archive if you want to!

Why emacs? Because most of the smarts to do this stuff was already in
emacs. I just gathered it together in a simple but clever way for Debian
users!  ;-)  Emacs users will recognize "tar-mode", the emacs feature
that that I'm exploiting.

You can get the latest deb-view.el from here:

http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~macdonal/deb-view.el

Sorry, I don't have anonymous ftp for you. The file is about 13KB.
If you can't get at it, I can email it to you.

-- 
...RickM...

---

From: Jean Orloff <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 14:09:47 +0200

Good job with deb-view.el! This is by all means a useful tool. For a next
version: it would be great to have an entry in crypt-build-encoding-alist so
that opening any .deb from emacs goes through your processing. After all,
crypt++ is provided with w3-el. This might annoy people that download .deb
files through ange-ftp though, unless you manage to get the writing routines
right...

On a related subject, I have the following problem: I am eagerly waiting for
the next release of USSLite, which should fully support my MAD16 82C930
soundcard. I tried downloading the tar.gz from the author, but failed compiling
my custom kernel with it. No hurry, I'll wait...

However, the question is: how do I know which kernel-source.deb contains which
USSLite version... Is there a way around downloading a 6Mb package, just to
read one filename? Although less acute, I guess this type of problems must
occur with other packages too (eg: what is the version number of chat in a
given ppp.deb package?)

Amities,

		Jean Orloff
+++++++++	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	++++++
+Tel:(33)50.09.16.75   Fax:(33)50.09.94.95   http://lapphp0.in2p3.fr/~orloff/+
+++++++++	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	++++++
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in
the country."
Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, D.C.
+++++++++	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+

---

From: Mark Eichin <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Aug 1996 16:23:11 -0400

>> w3 can be found via anonymous ftp to ftp.cs.indiana.edu:/pub/elisp/w3.

More usefully, w3 can be found in the binary-i386/net/w3-el_2.2.25-4.deb
on any debian mirror...

---

From: Ed Donovan <[email-masked]>
Date: 31 Aug 1996 02:04:41 -0400

> More usefully, w3 can be found in the binary-i386/net/w3-el_2.2.25-4.deb

Yeah, but those 2.2.x w3's are waaaaaaaaay slower than the 2.3 & now 3.0
betas, which are very usable.  There's a new html parser.  It's a
dramatic difference, & I really recommend it, well worth what betaness
there is.  In the 'betas' subdirectory of the above path; there may be a
symlink to newest version in the above directory also, don't recall.

-- 

Ed Donovan			[email-masked]

---

From: Ed Donovan <[email-masked]>
Date: 31 Aug 1996 02:47:08 -0400

> symlink to newest version in the above directory also, don't recall.

Well, wait, I didn't add: there is also a 2.2.26 release version, which
I'm pretty_ includes the fast new parser, though not this and that
spiffiness, blah, blah...

Raul, if you want to, great...if you don't have the time, maybe I'll
give it a shot.  Thanks,

--

---

From: Ed Donovan <[email-masked]>
Date: 31 Aug 1996 16:57:50 -0400

Well, how many times can I follow myself up?  Let me know if I get near
a record.

> spiffiness, blah, blah...

Uh, I may or may not be pretty, but that should have said "...I'm pretty
sure..." with little underlines which I won't try again.  Thank you for
your support.  

--