[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.


> > 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?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]