[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: --program-suffix
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: --program-suffix |
Date: |
Sun, 11 Nov 2001 23:11:29 -0700 (MST) |
I have my own opinion: remove this link at all and have only one
GNUecams21. Is there any reason to still have this link?
The alternate name is very useful; don't delete it.
> No, because they are not installed in the user's PATH; they are
> private command names, in effect. Some are run from Lisp code or from
> makefiles. Not renaming them means we don't have the problem of
> changing this Lisp code and the makefiles.
OK, I will apply these to all programs which are installed to bin/ and will
not apply them to programs which should be installed into
exec-directory. Is that the right thing?
Yes, I think that is right.
- Re: --program-suffix, Richard Stallman, 2001/11/05
- Re: --program-suffix, Pavel Janík, 2001/11/09
- Re: --program-suffix, Richard Stallman, 2001/11/10
- Re: --program-suffix, Andreas Schwab, 2001/11/10
- Re: --program-suffix, Pavel Janík, 2001/11/11
- Re: --program-suffix, Michael Welsh Duggan, 2001/11/11
- Re: --program-suffix, Pavel Janík, 2001/11/11
- Re: --program-suffix, Richard Stallman, 2001/11/12
- Re: --program-suffix,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: --program-suffix, Pavel Janík, 2001/11/12
- Re: --program-suffix, Richard Stallman, 2001/11/13
- Re: --program-suffix, Pavel Janík, 2001/11/13
- Re: --program-suffix, Richard Stallman, 2001/11/13
Please help developing Emacs, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/11/11