[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: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question.
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:23:37 +0200

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

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

All x-files have a corresponding w32-file, but I suppose they don't
always define the exact same symbols.

> 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?


--- redhat.lst  Thu Jun 13 11:49:53 2002
+++ windows.lst Thu Jun 13 11:49:40 2002

reply via email to

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