[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TODO additions
From: |
Dave Love |
Subject: |
Re: TODO additions |
Date: |
27 Nov 2002 23:38:22 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 |
Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> The question was about libc for Linux, not about Emacs on Debian.
>
> I didn't realize that, but the answer is the same: maybe we
> should put some of those patches into the standard version.
I don't know whether this means Emacs or libc. If the latter, as far
as I know, there aren't Debian-specific patches.
The current set of diffs for Emacs does appear to suggest that mail
locking will get configured wrongly on Debian, and you could lose
mail. I don't understand this offhand -- I originally put in autoconf
tests which I thought were consistent with the then-current Debian
changes.
[I'm actually using the XEmacs movemail from Debian, not the vanilla
one, because my mail spool isn't fed by a Debian system and I need to
be able to set the locking appropriately. I did look at merging those
changes, since they're probably covered by assignments, but it wasn't
straightforward. Doing that, or making equivalent changes, should be
in TODO.]
For 21.3, you might want other changes for gnu-linux mipsle, hp and
s390 targets, but they're inconsistent with the treatment in the
current head sources. (I just made a trivial change which should get
mipsle OK.)
I can send a pared-down version of the diffs if that's useful.
> It's actually GNU libc for GNU/Linux. Please don't call the whole
> system "Linux",
I'm not. I'm referring to one of the two kernels the library
currently supports, like node `Linux' in the libc manual.
> I don't see why these macro definitions would be any shorter
> if they were copied into configure.in.
I'm talking about doc strings for them (which can't be copied if they
don't exist).
> I don't know what you mean. The information I'm talking about is just
> missing.
>
> Precisely what information are you talking about, then?
What macros _mean_. Consider some of the things used in systty.h:
BSD_TERMIOS, HAVE_TCATTR, HAVE_TERMIO, NO_TERMIO, HAVE_TERMIOS. Does
HAVE_TERMIOS mean _POSIX_ termios? When should HAVE_TERMIO, NO_TERMIO
be defined? That sort of thing.
> I thought your proposal was to specify directly in
> configure.in the values that are now specified in
> the s/ and m/ files.
I didn't say that. I'd want to avoid specifying as much as possible.
E.g. autoconf has AC_SYS_POSIX_TERMIOS, and I can detect termio.h &c,
but without information like the above, that doesn't help.
> > The inheritance chains of *.h files are often long. Perhaps it would
> > simplify matters in some situations to eliminate some of the inheritance
> > by making some of the files self-contained.
>
> That would be better.
>
> Would you like to propose specific files to change so that they
> do not inherit?
I'll try to later.
- Re: TODO additions, (continued)
- Re: TODO additions, Dave Love, 2002/11/11
- Re: TODO additions, Richard Stallman, 2002/11/13
- Re: TODO additions, Dave Love, 2002/11/17
- Re: TODO additions, Richard Stallman, 2002/11/18
- Re: TODO additions, Dave Love, 2002/11/20
- Re: TODO additions, Richard Stallman, 2002/11/21
- Re: TODO additions, Dave Love, 2002/11/24
- Re: TODO additions, Richard Stallman, 2002/11/25
- Re: TODO additions,
Dave Love <=
- Re: TODO additions, Richard Stallman, 2002/11/29
- Re: TODO additions, Dave Love, 2002/11/29
- Re: TODO additions, Richard Stallman, 2002/11/29
- Re: TODO additions, Francesco Potorti`, 2002/11/27
- Re: TODO additions, Miles Bader, 2002/11/27
- Re: TODO additions, Eli Zaretskii, 2002/11/28
- Re: TODO additions, Richard Stallman, 2002/11/29
- Re: TODO additions, Francesco Potorti`, 2002/11/29
- Re: TODO additions, Richard Stallman, 2002/11/30
- Re: TODO additions, Richard Stallman, 2002/11/06