control: tag -1 pending
Thanks for the reminder. Committed to git, will upload once bookworm is
out the door.
Cheers,
-Hilko
FTBFS confirmed with elpa-buttercup/1.26-{1,2,3}, tests work just fine
using elpa-buttercup/1.24-1.
Package: elpa-org
Version: 9.2.2+dfsg-1
Severity: grave
Dear Maintainer,
when upgrading org-mode from unstable today, it failed in postinst in
compiling the .el files. The full of a subsequent "dpkg --configure
--all" run is attached. It seems to me that the message...
,
| In toplevel form:
Emacs 23.1 is likely to be released RSNish[1], so I am wondering whether
there are any ongoing efforts, apart from several inofficial
emacs-snapshot packages, to get any of the 23.0.9x pre-releases
packaged.
-Hilko
[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2009-07/msg00999.html
--
To U
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sure. But emacs23-snapshot suggests some compatibility with Emacs23.
> That is not the case. Nothing compiled for one snapshot is
> guaranteed to work with the next snapshot.
This would only be an issue if .elc files were preserved across
upgrades. This
Sven Joachim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since you're talking in subjunctive here: are you aware of the
> snapshots available from http://emacs.orebokech.com/?
No, I wasn't aware of those. Probably because they are not in sid. :-)
>> I see two reasons for calling the packages emacs23-snapshot*
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hilko Bengen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> And could we please call it emacs23-snapshot?
>
> Why? It is a current packaging of the trunk. What feature set
> constitutes "Emacs 23" is an evolving matter. T
Vincent Bernat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> once emacs 23.x is shipped with debian this bug should be
>> reassigned to emacs and be built from that source using
>> ./configure --with-ns --without-x
>
> Why not revive emacs-snaphot then?
And could we please call it emacs23-snapshot?
-Hilko
--
Michael Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When semantic is installed or upgraded -- yes. But what happens when
>> $FLAVOR is upgraded?
>
> It ought to call emacs-remove $FLAVOR, followed by emacs-install
> $FLAVOR, which would recompile the Emacs Lisp packages in a
> dependency-first manner.
I
Michael Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hilko Bengen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Michael Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I've implemented this as follows for the semantic package.
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>&g
Michael Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it's a good policy to add the source directories for all
> Emacs Lisp packages that are depended upon while performing
> byte-compilation,
Agreed.
> and to inhibit the loading of site-start.el. This prevents any 3rd
> party packages from inter
Sven Joachim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2008-07-26 23:00 +0200, Hilko Bengen wrote:
>> Source file `/usr/share/emacs22/site-lisp/sepia/snippet.el' newer than
>> byte-compiled file
>
> Not related to your problem, but this looks strange. Why does the
>
An emacs22 upgrade that was recently installed broke when it tried to
byte-compile a part of sepia (for which I maintain the Debian
package). This is the output I got when I tried to reinstall the
emacs22-gtk package:
$ sudo apt-get --reinstall install emacs22-gtk
[...]
emacs-install emacs22
insta
13 matches
Mail list logo
