[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD |
Date: |
Sat, 02 Aug 2008 10:45:46 +0300 |
> From: Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden>
> Cc: "Juanma Barranquero" <address@hidden>, address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 23:55:57 -0700
>
> The code was turned off by default, unused and unnecessary, and that has
> been explained on the list almost a year ago. If someone has a problem
> with that, it would be much more productive to explain why, but not just
> hand waving, with some real experience/examples. Otherwise please let
> bygones be bygones, it's a terrible waste of time.
I did explain why I have a problem with this: it breaks the MSDOS
port.
Now, since removing MULTI_KBOARD obviously was not discussed in
advance, I'm asking Yidong and Stefan to decide which of the following
is preferable:
. Revert Dan's changes that removed MULTI_KBOARD.
. Replace those #ifdef's that are needed by the MSDOS port (I don't
know whether this means all of them or not) with #ifdef MSDOS.
- Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/08/01
- Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/08/01
- Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD, Juanma Barranquero, 2008/08/01
- Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD, Richard M Stallman, 2008/08/02
- Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/08/02
- Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/08/02
- Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/08/02
- Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD, Jason Rumney, 2008/08/02
- Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD, Chong Yidong, 2008/08/02
- Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/08/02
- Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD, Nick Roberts, 2008/08/02
- Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2008/08/02
- Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/08/02
- Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD, Stefan Monnier, 2008/08/03
- Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/08/03