[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 19:50:59 +0300 |
> Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 12:42:20 -0400
> From: Alan Shutko <address@hidden>
>
> I'm afraid I don't know how this section works, just that if you
> recompile Emacs without X but use the DOC from the X version, the
> messages are garbled.
That's a clear sign of a bug, IMHO. src/Makefile.in is supposed to be
set up so that all versions of Emacs get the same functions
documented. That's why ${docdir} is not architecture dependent.
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Eli Zaretskii, 2002/06/01
- 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 <=
- 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
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Juanma Barranquero, 2002/06/13
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Eli Zaretskii, 2002/06/13