[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: |
Sat, 1 Jun 2002 15:04:32 -0600 (MDT) |
However this
wouldn't be safe if the files in the with and without-x install trees
are likely to be different in important ways (i.e. different sets of
files, binary incompatibilities in .elc files, etc.).
I don't think this changes anything but the Emacs executable, but I
cannot be sure. It is definitely possible in principle for a .el file
to test for the presence of X at compile time. I think that would be
an unclean method, and I think if we find such a case we should fix
it.
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., (continued)
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Richard Stallman, 2002/06/24
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Rob Browning, 2002/06/24
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Stefan Monnier, 2002/06/24
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Eli Zaretskii, 2002/06/25
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Rob Browning, 2002/06/25
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Eli Zaretskii, 2002/06/25
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Richard Stallman, 2002/06/26
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Rob Browning, 2002/06/26
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Richard Stallman, 2002/06/25
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Rob Browning, 2002/06/10
Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question.,
Richard Stallman <=