J閞鬽e Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Quoting Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>> That's right. I'll see if I can change that. >> >> What's wrong with the way you are currently doing it? > > Nothing, I think. Weren't you suggesting making changes in emacs21?
Not directly, although I guess I did imply that it had some superfluous lines in its rules file. I thought you meant you were going to see if you could change the emacs-snapshot rules file to match that of emacs21. >>>>> I think we could avoid patching Makefile.in >> >> [...] >> >>>>> What do you think? (I haven't tested) >>>> >>>> Ah, yes, that looks great. I didn't realize that locallisppath is >>>> only used in that one place in Makefile.in. >>>> >>>> I will try building with this change. >>> >>> Good. Thanks. >> >> I've built it, and it works perfectly! > > Very nice! Thanks for testing! > > I'll try to commit your changes today, along with my work on > splitting misc-unseparated.dpatch. Great, thanks! >>> BTW, I have a patch for configure.in which eliminates the need for >>> calling epaths-force after running configure. I'll submit it >>> to emacs-devel ASAP. >> >> That sounds great. Does it add a --locallisppath parameter? > > Yes. --enable-locallisppath even. I see, nice. -- Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
