[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: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question. |
Date: |
Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:47:19 -0600 (MDT) |
A simple oversight, I'd say. ucs-tables was added to src/Makefile.in by
Stefan Monnier on 2002/04/02; I suppose he didn't think of adding it to
makefile.w32-in or whatever. font-core.el is in a similar situation: it
was added to src/Makefile.in 2002/05/21, and it's not used on the Windows
DOC.
This illustrates why it will be difficult to keep the DOC file in sync
between Windows and other systems.
In this case, the discrepancies were outright errors; they resulted in
a DOC file that was simply wrong on Windows. Fixing these bugs was
necessary regardless of whether we want the DOC file to be identical
on Windows and on GNU|Unix. Perhaps this means that checking for
differences in the DOC files is a useful way to find places where
we omitted a change that needed to be made in makefile.w32.
Thus, it may be that insisting the DOC file must be identical on
all platforms actually improves maintenance.
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., (continued)
- 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, 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., 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 <=
- 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
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Rob Browning, 2002/06/20
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Eli Zaretskii, 2002/06/21
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Rob Browning, 2002/06/21
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Rob Browning, 2002/06/22
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Richard Stallman, 2002/06/23
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Rob Browning, 2002/06/24