[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 08:21:17 +0300 (IDT)

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Juanma Barranquero wrote:

> I've bootstrapped HEAD on Windows and on a RedHat 7.2, I've extracted
> the symbols from each (text between \x1F and \x0A), sorted the lists and
> compared them. There are 193 differences.

Thanks for the footwork.

Could you please identify the reasons for these differences?  That is, 
what modules are present in the list submitted to make-docfile on each 
platform, and which explain these differences?

AFAICS, there are some platform-specific files (that's where those w32-* 
and dos-* symbols come from); the question is whether all platforms 
should have the doc strings of those.

Then there are some x-* symbols which I thought should be in all 

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?

reply via email to

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