specific comint version. I
obtained an error message which I attach.
regards
Uwe Brauer
PS I also think that debian should rethink its policy of
sharing .el files between GNU and Xemacs.
Footnotes:
[1] as far as I can see there is no difference between
Debian and Ubuntu with respect to (X
On 10 Jun 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Uwe Brauer wrote
> and that ispell.elc is not used. The one I previously mentioned is
> bytecompiled on install and is first in the load path
>
>> And that leads me to a general question: could not please be all el
>> files ship
- why are the files gzipped?
How is deceiding this policy?
Regards
Uwe Brauer
On 10 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> On 10 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I forget to add one important thing of course, the Xemacs package
>>>> system which allows on
On 10 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> On 10 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I forget to add one important thing of course, the Xemacs package
>>>> system which allows on
On 10 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I forget to add one important thing of course, the Xemacs package
>> system which allows on the fly actualization. Emacs has nothing
>> similar.
>
> According to what I read, it is not a missing feature, it is an
> unwanted feature. I'm personaly happy
On 10 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mule in Emacs in not the same as the one in XEmacs, so a mule-free
> version might not be relevant.
A part from BIDI support what is different, I remembered when Mule
started (officially) xemacs was far less buggy then emacs.
>
>> 3. Mail: the excelle
On 9 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> You are kidding? Xemacs is still in some ways superior to emacs and
>> giving up Xemacs is making debian *less* attractive.
>
> Just curious. Any example of how XEmacs is in some w
y.
>This would entail the removal of three additional packages, but no
>more (most packages dependingon xemacs21 have alternative
>dependencies on 'emacsen' or 'emacs21').
You are kidding? Xemacs is still in some ways superior to emacs and
giving up Xemacs is making debian *less* attractive.
Uwe Brauer
On 27 Feb 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> 1. Auctex: xemacs loads the auctex package for emacs21! That is
>> having (require 'tex-site) in the init file and doing
>> locate-library, points out to the gnu emacs direc
On 27 Feb 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I guess what you want are backports of recent XEmacs packages.
>
I am not sure I understand and I also think this is important:
Xemacs official package system sometimes has been out of syn
On 27 Feb 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:06:23 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Nathanael Nerode) said:
>
> Nathanael> The maintainer, James Lewis-Moss, appears to be too busy
> Nathanael> (or something) to maintain the xemacs packages properly
> Nathanael> at the moment.
On 26 Feb 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:36:26PM +0100, Uwe Brauer wrote:
>> Very true, I mentioned some oddies and also propose to sync with
>> offical xemacs release politics, ie stable should be 21.4.x and
>> testing 21.5.x.
>
> I don
me oddies and also propose to sync with
offical xemacs release politics, ie stable should be 21.4.x and
testing
21.5.x.
Where can I find documentation in case I would like to help.
Uwe Brauer
x the unstable one. This is the official politics as stated in
the xemacs webpage.
Regards
Uwe Brauer
ow an official xemacs package and
therefore no need to multiply the effort in maintaining a debian pkg
apart.
Uwe Brauer
XF86config file, nothing strange in there.
However shift+Fn keys are recognised in Openoffice and even in GNU
emacs!
For me this is a serious misbehaviour,
Any experience or suggestions?
Thanks
Uwe Brauer
17 matches
Mail list logo
