[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: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question. |
Date: |
Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:32:52 -0400 |
IIRC It's because cus-dep.el loads files and the load order is important.
The set of preloaded files is different, so the load order is different
so the resulting cus-load.el is different.
How about if we make cus-load.el start by sorting the files by ASCII
order. That would eliminate all differences that result from this
cause.
However, the cause of the other differences remains to be determined.
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., (continued)
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Rob Browning, 2002/06/24
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Rob Browning, 2002/06/24
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Richard Stallman, 2002/06/24
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Rob Browning, 2002/06/24
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Stefan Monnier, 2002/06/24
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Eli Zaretskii, 2002/06/25
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Rob Browning, 2002/06/25
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Eli Zaretskii, 2002/06/25
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Richard Stallman, 2002/06/26
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Rob Browning, 2002/06/26
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question.,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Rob Browning, 2002/06/10
Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question., Richard Stallman, 2002/06/01