[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: |
Sat, 01 Jun 2002 10:24:20 +0300 |
> Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 15:08:16 -0400
> From: Alan Shutko <address@hidden>
>
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > There should not be any such incompatibilities. The .elc files could
> > be slightly different, but they should work at run time anyway.
>
> DOC is the traditional bugaboo
If you mean that DOC doesn't include all the doc strings it should,
then it's a bug that should be fixed.
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question.,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Alan Shutko, 2002/06/01
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Eli Zaretskii, 2002/06/01
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Rob Browning, 2002/06/10
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Alan Shutko, 2002/06/10
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Stefan Monnier, 2002/06/10
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Alan Shutko, 2002/06/10
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Eli Zaretskii, 2002/06/11
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Alan Shutko, 2002/06/11
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Juanma Barranquero, 2002/06/12
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Eli Zaretskii, 2002/06/13