[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: National Language Support Functions

From: Lennart Borgman (gmail)
Subject: Re: National Language Support Functions
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:48:35 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20061207)

Juanma Barranquero wrote:
On 12/29/06, Lennart Borgman <address@hidden> wrote:

I have already said I agreed.

Yes. My mind was wandering around, lost in the concept of awfulness,
and I got carried away. Sorry.

No problem. I felt myself I did not listen carefully enough to what was said about the original problem. I try to do, but sometimes I lost my way.

I have no intention of making my Emacs binary distribution be different
from Emacs default if I can avoid it.

Of course. But your threshold for deciding that it cannot be avoided
doesn't seem hard to reach.

It is personal of course ;-) - But on the other hand I have noticed that most users dowloading from my site prefer the patched version.

The purpose of my binary distribution was (as I several times has said)
to make it more easy to get Emacs up and running on w32. I was surprised
that it was so difficult and time consuming.

Compiling Emacs on Windows can be time-consuming. Setting it up is not IMHO.

Yes, getting starting compiling was a big problem, but now I have everything setup and it is very easy to compile and upload. I just type "doit". The unpatched version I do not test at all. The patched version I test before I move it to the download area on the web site.

You need to get the external tools and set them up to to get the most out of Emacs. Including a basic subset of them in a distribution is therefore useful in my opinion. Or having that as a separate distribution.

reply via email to

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