Re: Latest Emacs is on one system not graphical

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

Decebal <CLDWesterhof@gmail.com> writes:

> On 8 mei, 22:40, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote:
>> Decebal <CLDWester...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > I build Emacs on two different systems. On the first system it works
>> > okay, but on the second one Emacs became terminal based. When
>> > installing the version made on the first system on the second system
>> > Emacs is a graphical version. What is happening here?
>>
>> Sometimes, for some strange reason, distributions compile and install
>> non graphic emacs.
>>
>> Either you'll find a way to configure your distribution to provide a X
>> emacs, or just download the sources yourself, and compile them with X
>> enabled.  It takes less than 5 minutes.
>
> That is what I did. (Took more then 5 minutes.) But on the first
> system it was compiled as a graphical Emacs and on the other as a non-
> graphical. In both cases I did:
>     ./configure
>     make

Then check configure output.  On one system it doesn't find the X
libraries.   Check if they're installed, find where, and add options
to configure, such as:

  --x-includes=DIR    X include files are in DIR
  --x-libraries=DIR   X library files are in DIR

(other options may be needed, try: ./configure --help).



>> There are defaults stored in various places.  One is ~/.Xresources,
>
> Is not there.

Probably a hint that X is not installed. But anyways, I prefer to
configure things in ~/.emacs.  The difference is that emacs takes the
parameters from X before opening the first frame, so it's directly
created with the right parameters.  It processes ~/.emacs later, and
you may see the frame change from the compiled-in defaults to the
parameters you set in ~/.emacs at start-up.  Not important, just an
esthetic thing.

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__