Re: National Language Support Functions

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> On 12/29/06, Lennart Borgman <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > I have already said I agreed.
>
> Yes. My mind was wandering around, lost in the concept of awfulness,
> and I got carried away. Sorry.

No problem. I felt myself I did not listen carefully enough to what was 
said about the original problem. I try to do, but sometimes I lost my way.

> > I have no intention of making my Emacs binary distribution be different
> > from Emacs default if I can avoid it.
>
> Of course. But your threshold for deciding that it cannot be avoided
> doesn't seem hard to reach.

It is personal of course ;-)   - But on the other hand I have noticed 
that most users dowloading from my site prefer the patched version.

> > The purpose of my binary distribution was (as I several times has said)
> > to make it more easy to get Emacs up and running on w32. I was surprised
> > that it was so difficult and time consuming.
>
> Compiling Emacs on Windows can be time-consuming. Setting it up is not 
> IMHO.

Yes, getting starting compiling was a big problem, but now I have 
everything setup and it is very easy to compile and upload. I just type 
"doit". The unpatched version I do not test at all. The patched version 
I test before I move it to the download area on the web site.

You need to get the external tools and set them up to to get the most 
out of Emacs. Including a basic subset of them in a distribution is 
therefore useful in my opinion. Or having that as a separate distribution.