> MS == Manoj Srivastava [2006-10-31]
MS> anymore, though I would not like to lose track of the issue about
MS> patch shadowing and whether we should hardlink .el files into the
MS> place where we create .el files, and only include the latter in the
.elc
MS> load-pat
This is going to be my last message.
В Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:16:26 -0500, Peter Galbraith написа:
>> Good luck in finding volunteers for that work. The GNU Emacs manual
>> is a perfectly fine free manual for me. If you want to prove the
>> contrary -- you'll have to prove that you really care abo
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please join me in a new thread about load path issues in
> Debian's emacsen.
As I mentionned earlier, I think I have done something sensible with the
emacs-goodies-el source package (binary packages emacs-goodies-el,
debian-el, gnus-bonus-el,
Hi,
Is this discussion going any where? Debian has a stance about
what it considers free, and what it's support polices regarding
non-free material, and these are spelled out in the social contract.
People disagree with how we divvy up free software from
non-free software; we
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:07:43 +0100, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Peter Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>> > We do care about free software, we even treat documentation like
>>>
> PG == Peter Galbraith [2006-10-30]
PG> We don't include binary-only software in Debian
Now, that's strange: I thought we included binary only firmware in
Debian. Maybe I am mistaken? ;-)
--
Ciao, Davide
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
> MO == Mike O'Connor [2006-10-30]
MO> This is what i meant when i said, "GNU took the free emacs manual
MO> and made it non-free", so we are in agreement about this.
You might have not noticed it, but the GNU Manifesto has always been
included in the GNU Emacs manual, and it has always been
Peter Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Peter Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > We do care about free software, we even treat documentation like
>> > software. Something that the FSF doesn't even do.
>>
>> Uh, what kind of logic is
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We do care about free software, we even treat documentation like
> > software. Something that the FSF doesn't even do.
>
> Uh, what kind of logic is that?
>
> "We care about children, we even treat dog
Peter Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We do care about free software, we even treat documentation like
> software. Something that the FSF doesn't even do.
Uh, what kind of logic is that?
"We care about children, we even treat dogs like children."
> We have to not betray the ideals of t
Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But whether or not Debian is going to keep the non-free section is
> > not really relevant to this discussion.
>
> This is irrelevant to any discussion on any Debian mailing list,
> because it makes people uneasy and guilty.
Like hell it does. We hav
В Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:23:15 -0500, Mike O'Connor написа:
>> But don't ship non-free software while trying to convince us
>>that you're devoted to free software. Or, alternatively, continue
>>shipping it, but stop lying blatantly your users.
>
> The social contract is pretty clear on this. In l
+++ David Kastrup [30/10/06 14:15 +0100]:
Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
But what we are talking about is the fact that GNU took the free
emacs manual and made it non-free, not the other way around.
They "took" it?
The verb took in that sentence was idoiomatic. Please don't in
Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But what we are talking about is the fact that GNU took the free
> emacs manual and made it non-free, not the other way around.
They "took" it? Sorry, but they _wrote_ it, all versions of it. And
equating "free" with "DFSG-free and nothing else" is a
+++ Yavor Doganov [30/10/06 12:13 +0200]:
В Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:15:46 -0500, Manoj Srivastava написа:
But don't ship non-free software while trying to convince us
that you're devoted to free software. Or, alternatively, continue
shipping it, but stop lying blatantly your users.
The social
В Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:15:46 -0500, Manoj Srivastava написа:
> Careful what you ask for. If we stop packaging non-free
> material, your precious non-free manuals go with them.
If Debian considers GNU documentation as unethical as Sun's Java, so
be it. But don't ship non-free software whil
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Just because this is a freedom you do not care about does not mean
> > it is a freedom that Debian does not care about.
>
> But Debian does not _provide_ freedoms. It just takes them away.
> Throwing
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:25:02 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:20:15 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:53:14 +0200
Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sunday 29 October 2006 01:25 am, David Kastrup wrote:
>> > I am prevented from making a small version of the manual
>> > to go along with the emacs prc I hav made for my palm device;
>> > since memory all limited.
>>
>> Not at all. You ar
On Sunday 29 October 2006 01:25 am, David Kastrup wrote:
> > I am prevented from making a small version of the manual to
> > go along with the emacs prc I hav made for my palm device; since
> > memory all limited.
>
> Not at all. You are prevented from _distributing_ such a manual, and
>
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:20:15 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:53:14 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> said:
>>>
You did not answer my question
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:09:05 +0300, Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> В Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:37:06 -0400, Peter Galbraith написа:
>>> Are you saying that removing the manual makes Emacs "more free"?
>>
>> Absolutely, according to Debian standards of free software.
> I will try to grasp t
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:20:15 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:53:14 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>>> You did not answer my question. What freedom of the user is
>>> protected by removi
В Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:37:06 -0400, Peter Galbraith написа:
>> Are you saying that removing the manual makes Emacs "more free"?
>
> Absolutely, according to Debian standards of free software.
I will try to grasp the meaning of these words when Debian stops
packaging and distributing the NVidious
Le samedi 28 octobre 2006 10:35, Sven Joachim a écrit :
> I'm afraid even the Debian maintainers do not understand it, because
> load-path is _really_ broken in Debian Emacsen. The add-on packages'
> directories are supposed to come after the site-specific directories
> under /usr/local according
I'd like to draw attention to some serious load-path issues, as I
believe that David makes correct observations.
David Kastrup wrote:
> [...] It is not sensibly possible to
> install, say, your own up-to-date version of AUCTeX from a source ball
> and install it into a local tree, in particular i
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:53:14 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> You did not answer my question. What freedom of the user is
>> protected by removing GFDLed documentation from Emacs?
>
> Similar to the freedoms protected by n
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:13:49 +0900, Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Personally, if I (1) like something, but (2) don't like some small
> aspect of it, I'd rather try to change that aspect rather than
> switching to something else. I think this is by far the most
> productive approach.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:53:14 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> You did not answer my question. What freedom of the user is
> protected by removing GFDLed documentation from Emacs?
Similar to the freedoms protected by not providing propreitary
code on the GNU system.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:16:43 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> not an Debian Emacs packaging policy issue, so there not much you
>> can do about it. Moving the whole thing to non-free means removing
>> Emacs from Debian, since non-free isn't part of Debian. I
>> understand that
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:37:06 -0400, Peter Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * vrms complains that the crippled half of Emacs is non-free. This
>> is outrageous.
> So fill a bug report. It should be called vdsfg or something.
Someone has already d
Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> +++ David Kastrup [27/10/06 23:03 +0200]:
>>Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>What freedom of the user is protected by removing GFDLed documentation
>>from Emacs?
>>
>
> Do you understand why debian believes the documents are non-free in
> t
Peter Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>[...] since
>> >> nobody can understand or work with
+++ David Kastrup [27/10/06 23:03 +0200]:
Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What freedom of the user is protected by removing GFDLed documentation
from Emacs?
Do you understand why debian believes the documents are non-free in the first
place? Do you understand that debian aims to be
Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> +++ David Kastrup [27/10/06 10:22 +0200]:
>>You mean, making an example of Emacs users is ok because you think the
>>experienced ones might be able to work around the attack?
>>
>>Last time I looked, the Debian policies were supposed to be good for
>>its
Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ð Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:30:58 -0400, Peter S Galbraith напиÑа:
>
> > There was a vote.
>
> Unfortunate one.
>
> > This new package abides by the results it and remains free.
>
> Are you saying that removing the manual makes Emacs "more free"?
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > David, why are you getting so upset about this as a Debian user? If
> > you're unhappy with debian, by all means use another distribution; there
> > are plenty to choose from. No, I'm not trying to irritate
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>[...] since nobody can
> >> understand or work with the broken mess the Debian Emacs package
> >> policie
+++ David Kastrup [27/10/06 10:22 +0200]:
You mean, making an example of Emacs users is ok because you think the
experienced ones might be able to work around the attack?
Last time I looked, the Debian policies were supposed to be good for
its users, not a weapon against them.
The motivation h
Le vendredi 27 octobre 2006 10:22, vous avez écrit :
> > Not everyone use Emacs for LaTex editing
>
> But quite a few users do, and also new users (the respective mailing
> lists have hundreds of readers). But I find that somewhat beside the
> point unless you don't actually care for the package
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le jeudi 26 octobre 2006 23:45, David Kastrup a écrit :
>
>> > These days, I wouldn't encourage people to try Emacs. It's not
>> > nonsense, it's my opinion.
>>
>> There is no LaTeX editing environment with even half the functionality
>> of AUCTeX avai
В Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:30:58 -0400, Peter S Galbraith написа:
> There was a vote.
Unfortunate one.
> This new package abides by the results it and remains free.
Are you saying that removing the manual makes Emacs "more free"?
> As a bonus, they went to the trouble of packaging the docs into
>
Romain Francoise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> C-h K C-t does not lead to the manual, it leads to doc strings.
>
> In Emacs 22, C-h K, C-h F and C-h S open the manual in Info.
> In Emacs 21, they just get translated to their lowercase counterparts
> s
Le vendredi 27 octobre 2006 09:20, Jérôme Marant a écrit :
> Le vendredi 27 octobre 2006 09:14, Miles Bader a écrit :
> > Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > apt-listchanges is quite popular, you know. Don't underestimate users.
> >
> > Don't underestimate _debian_ users perhaps; users
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> C-h K C-t does not lead to the manual, it leads to doc strings.
In Emacs 22, C-h K, C-h F and C-h S open the manual in Info.
In Emacs 21, they just get translated to their lowercase counterparts
since the bindings don't exist.
--
,''`.
: :' :
Le vendredi 27 octobre 2006 09:14, Miles Bader a écrit :
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > apt-listchanges is quite popular, you know. Don't underestimate users.
>
> Don't underestimate _debian_ users perhaps; users in general, er,
> well, I don't think you'll go broke underestimatin
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> apt-listchanges is quite popular, you know. Don't underestimate users.
Don't underestimate _debian_ users perhaps; users in general, er,
well, I don't think you'll go broke underestimating them. :-)
-Miles
--
In New York, most people don't have cars,
Le jeudi 26 octobre 2006 23:45, David Kastrup a écrit :
> > These days, I wouldn't encourage people to try Emacs. It's not
> > nonsense, it's my opinion.
>
> There is no LaTeX editing environment with even half the functionality
> of AUCTeX available, in particular if you develop .dtx files, wri
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ouch, such spite... Why are you using Debian and posting here if it's
> so bad?
I can't speak for David, but I use Debian despite it's many flaws
because on average it's better technically, and "socially" than other
distributions. One needn't agree
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David, why are you getting so upset about this as a Debian user? If
> you're unhappy with debian, by all means use another distribution; there
> are plenty to choose from. No, I'm not trying to irritate you. I just
> wonder why it matters so much th
"Mike O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I find emacs extremely useful, with or without docs. I'm suprised that you
> wouldn't find it to be useful, or that you would think that there is nobody
> that would be helped by having emacs available. I think that removing
> emacs from debian comple
Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> +++ David Kastrup [26/10/06 22:30 +0200]:
>>
>>Debian installs source Elisp files and the compiled files into
>>different directories. This is a mistake. Call the command
>
> Which files? which directories? It looks like on my system
> /usr/share/ema
+++ David Kastrup [26/10/06 22:30 +0200]:
Debian installs source Elisp files and the compiled files into
different directories. This is a mistake. Call the command
Which files? which directories? It looks like on my system
/usr/share/emacs/21.4/lisp contains both?
stew
signature.asc
De
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le jeudi 26 octobre 2006 19:10, vous avez écrit :
>
>> > Newbies don't use Emacs because it's not for them.
>>
>> Of course, this is complete nonsense. _Everybody_ who _ever_ uses
>> Emacs passes through a newbie phase.
>
> These days, I wouldn't encou
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le jeudi 26 octobre 2006 22:30, vous avez écrit :
>
>> > Now, how about you describe straight how you'd see it to be
>> > implemented and we begin constructive discussions instead, please?
>> > Thanks.
>>
>> It is not like I have not explained this seve
Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> +++ David Kastrup [26/10/06 21:22 +0200]:
>>
>>But M-x report-emacs-bug RET reports to the GNU addresses.
>
> If you feel that the debian package should not do this, please file
> a bug in the debian bug tracking system: http://bugs.debian.org
I don't f
Le jeudi 26 octobre 2006 22:30, vous avez écrit :
> > Now, how about you describe straight how you'd see it to be
> > implemented and we begin constructive discussions instead, please?
> > Thanks.
>
> It is not like I have not explained this several times already.
You did not read me. I talked a
+++ David Kastrup [26/10/06 21:22 +0200]:
But M-x report-emacs-bug RET reports to the GNU addresses.
If you feel that the debian package should not do this, please file a bug in
the debian bug tracking system: http://bugs.debian.org
stew
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le jeudi 26 octobre 2006 21:06, David Kastrup a écrit :
>
>> It _is_ already true. It is not possible to find anybody on either
>> the Emacs or XEmacs developer lists who could understand or use the
>> the Debian packaging implementation. I tried, as A
Le jeudi 26 octobre 2006 22:22, vous avez écrit :
> +++ Jérôme Marant [26/10/06 08:44 +0200]:
> >Hi,
> >
> >New DFSG-compliant emacs packages hit the archive yesterday.
> >Non-free files (among them almost all GFDL manuals) have been moved
> >to the non-free emacs
+++ Jérôme Marant [26/10/06 08:44 +0200]:
Hi,
New DFSG-compliant emacs packages hit the archive yesterday.
Non-free files (among them almost all GFDL manuals) have been moved
to the non-free emacs21-common-non-dfsg binary package.
Additionaly, the long awaited dummy "emacs" package,
Le jeudi 26 octobre 2006 21:06, David Kastrup a écrit :
> It _is_ already true. It is not possible to find anybody on either
> the Emacs or XEmacs developer lists who could understand or use the
> the Debian packaging implementation. I tried, as AUCTeX maintainer.
> That has nothing to do with t
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[...] since nobody can
>> understand or work with the broken mess the Debian Emacs package
>> policies provide.
>>
>> I think you'll be hard put to find any
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Experienced users know Emacs enough to get along without its
>> > documentation,
>>
>> Again, this is utter nonsense. I am an active Emacs developer and
>> maintainer of AUCTeX, and such can hardly be
Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> +++ David Kastrup [26/10/06 19:39 +0200]:
>
>>I think you'll be hard put to find any maintainer or developer of an
>>Emacs or XEmacs application who would not rather use a self-compiled
>>Emacs than the Debian contraptions.
>
> I guess we'll see if that
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[...] since nobody can
> understand or work with the broken mess the Debian Emacs package
> policies provide.
>
> I think you'll be hard put to find any maintainer or developer of an
> Emacs or XEmacs applic
+++ David Kastrup [26/10/06 19:39 +0200]:
Anyway, if Debian decides that the form in which the FSF provides GNU
software is not appropriate for inclusion in main, it should either
start its own replacement documentation projects in order to make
DFSG-compliant variants of GNU software, or move t
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim McCloskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > +++ David Kastrup [26/10/06 17:25 +0200] wrote:
> >
> > |> Since Emacs is not really useful without its online docs, the
> > |> incomplete version in main helps nobody.
> >
> > I use Emacs constantly;
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Experienced users know Emacs enough to get along without its
> > documentation,
>
> Again, this is utter nonsense. I am an active Emacs developer and
> maintainer of AUCTeX, and such can hardly be called inexperienced, and
> I frequently need the docu
Le jeudi 26 octobre 2006 19:10, vous avez écrit :
> > Newbies don't use Emacs because it's not for them.
>
> Of course, this is complete nonsense. _Everybody_ who _ever_ uses
> Emacs passes through a newbie phase.
These days, I wouldn't encourage people to try Emacs.
It's not nonsense, it's my
Jim McCloskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> +++ David Kastrup [26/10/06 17:25 +0200] wrote:
>
> |> Since Emacs is not really useful without its online docs, the
> |> incomplete version in main helps nobody.
>
> I use Emacs constantly; I virtually never use the online docs. I'd be
> dead with
I think David's reply couldn't capture the issue more plainly:
>> Newbies don't use Emacs because it's not for them.
>
> Of course, this is complete nonsense. _Everybody_ who _ever_ uses
> Emacs passes through a newbie phase.
>
>> Experienced users know Emacs enough to get along without its
>> do
Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> +++ David Kastrup [26/10/06 18:17 +0200]:
>>Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> +++ David Kastrup [26/10/06 17:25 +0200]:
>
Since Emacs is not really useful without its online docs, the
incomplete version in main helps nobody.
>>
+++ David Kastrup [26/10/06 17:25 +0200] wrote:
|> Since Emacs is not really useful without its online docs, the
|> incomplete version in main helps nobody.
I use Emacs constantly; I virtually never use the online docs. I'd be
dead without the `incomplete' version in main,
Jim
--
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le jeudi 26 octobre 2006 17:25, David Kastrup a écrit :
>
>> > They could have simply dropped the docs altogether; they didn't.
>> > All they have done is separate the package into a part that the FSF
>> > says you can _completely_ and freely modify, and
+++ David Kastrup [26/10/06 18:17 +0200]:
Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
+++ David Kastrup [26/10/06 17:25 +0200]:
Since Emacs is not really useful without its online docs, the
incomplete version in main helps nobody.
I find emacs extremely useful, with or without docs. I'm sup
Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> +++ David Kastrup [26/10/06 17:25 +0200]:
>>>
>>Since Emacs is not really useful without its online docs, the
>>incomplete version in main helps nobody.
>
> I find emacs extremely useful, with or without docs. I'm suprised
> that you wouldn't find it to
Le jeudi 26 octobre 2006 17:25, David Kastrup a écrit :
> > They could have simply dropped the docs altogether; they didn't.
> > All they have done is separate the package into a part that the FSF
> > says you can _completely_ and freely modify, and another part that
> > the FSF says you can't. I
Le jeudi 26 octobre 2006 16:30, vous avez écrit :
> Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > >
> > > Please report any problem related to these changes ASAP. Thanks.
> >
> > Not exactly a technical problem, but as a humble user and member of
> > the local flock of
+++ David Kastrup [26/10/06 17:25 +0200]:
Since Emacs is not really useful without its online docs, the
incomplete version in main helps nobody.
I find emacs extremely useful, with or without docs. I'm suprised that you
wouldn't find it to be useful, or that you would think that there is nob
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> >
>> > Please report any problem related to these changes ASAP. Thanks.
>>
>> Not exactly a technical problem, but as a humble user and member of
>> the local flock of the GNU Em
Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jérôme Marant wrote:
> >
> > Please report any problem related to these changes ASAP. Thanks.
>
> Not exactly a technical problem, but as a humble user and member of
> the local flock of the GNU Emacs Church, I find the output of `M-x
> emacs-version' r
Jérôme Marant wrote:
>
> Please report any problem related to these changes ASAP. Thanks.
Not exactly a technical problem, but as a humble user and member of
the local flock of the GNU Emacs Church, I find the output of `M-x
emacs-version' rather deceptive. This trivial patch should fix it:
---
Hi,
New DFSG-compliant emacs packages hit the archive yesterday.
Non-free files (among them almost all GFDL manuals) have been moved
to the non-free emacs21-common-non-dfsg binary package.
Additionaly, the long awaited dummy "emacs" package, depending on
the latest emacs release, has
84 matches
Mail list logo
