[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question.
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question. |
Date: |
Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:42:05 +0300 (IDT) |
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:21:17 +0300 (IDT), Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
> wrote:
>
> > That is, what modules are present in the list submitted to make-docfile on
> > each
> > platform, and which explain these differences?
>
> See the list below.
Thanks!
> > the question is whether all platforms should have the doc strings of those.
>
> That seems like a good idea, but it'll pose a maintenance burden, I
> think.
What maintenance burden did you have in mind? All we need is make sure
make-docfile is invoked with the same list of files on all platforms.
> > And then there are some symbols like ucs-* and others which should have
> > been in DOC on all systems--can you see why they aren't?
>
> Don't know why the relevant files (like lisp/international/ucs-tables)
> aren't included. An oversight, perhaps?
The interesting question is why are doc strings from ucs-tables seen on
Unix and GNU/Linux systems, but not on Windows?
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., (continued)
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Eli Zaretskii, 2002/06/01
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Rob Browning, 2002/06/10
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Alan Shutko, 2002/06/10
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Stefan Monnier, 2002/06/10
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Alan Shutko, 2002/06/10
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Eli Zaretskii, 2002/06/11
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Alan Shutko, 2002/06/11
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Juanma Barranquero, 2002/06/12
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Eli Zaretskii, 2002/06/13
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Juanma Barranquero, 2002/06/13
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question.,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Juanma Barranquero, 2002/06/13
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Eli Zaretskii, 2002/06/13
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Juanma Barranquero, 2002/06/13
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Eli Zaretskii, 2002/06/13
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Juanma Barranquero, 2002/06/13
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Richard Stallman, 2002/06/14
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Eli Zaretskii, 2002/06/15
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Richard Stallman, 2002/06/13
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Juanma Barranquero, 2002/06/14
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Eli Zaretskii, 2002/06/15