Re: re emacs23 update

2011-03-21 Thread David Coppa
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Manuel Giraud wrote: I've (not so heavily) tested it on my sparc64 box. The gtk+2 flavor builds and packages fine. It also seemed to work without particular problems in all my test cases... > Another round. Tested on i386 GENERIC.MP and "emacs --batch -f > byte-

Re: re emacs23 update

2011-03-21 Thread Manuel Giraud
David Coppa writes: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Manuel Giraud > wrote: >> >> Another round. Tested on i386 GENERIC.MP and "emacs --batch -f >> byte-compile-file": ok. > > What's about this? Can it be committed? I didn't have report on other arch of this last version with Mike Belopuhov p

Re: re emacs23 update

2011-03-21 Thread Christiano F. Haesbaert
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:36:17AM +0100, David Coppa wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Manuel Giraud > wrote: > > > > Another round. Tested on i386 GENERIC.MP and "emacs --batch -f > > byte-compile-file": ok. > > What's about this? Can it be committed? > I've been using the version pri

Re: re emacs23 update

2011-03-21 Thread David Coppa
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Manuel Giraud wrote: > > Another round. Tested on i386 GENERIC.MP and "emacs --batch -f > byte-compile-file": ok. What's about this? Can it be committed? cheers, david

Re: re emacs23 update

2011-03-16 Thread Manuel Giraud
Another round. Tested on i386 GENERIC.MP and "emacs --batch -f byte-compile-file": ok. emacs.tgz Description: Unix tar archive -- Manuel Giraud

Re: re emacs23 update

2011-03-15 Thread Mike Belopuhov
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:26 +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > re, > > it turns out that SIGIO handling in emacs incorporates too many > workarounds, especially when running under X and at this point > it's impossible (at least for me) to grasp through the code and > find why it fails to work with x

Re: re emacs23 update

2011-03-15 Thread Mike Belopuhov
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 15:17 +0100, Manuel Giraud wrote: > Mike Belopuhov writes: > > > re, > > > > it turns out that SIGIO handling in emacs incorporates too many > > workarounds, especially when running under X and at this point > > it's impossible (at least for me) to grasp through the code a

Re: re emacs23 update

2011-03-15 Thread Matthew Dempsky
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Manuel Giraud wrote: > Here's the new version of emacs 23 port. Tested and ok on i386 GENERIC.MP In post-install, since bin/emacs and bin/emacs-${VERSION} are hard linked to the same file, you only need to chmod -t one of them. Shouldn't you get rid of the REVISI

Re: re emacs23 update

2011-03-15 Thread Manuel Giraud
Here's the new version of emacs 23 port. Tested and ok on i386 GENERIC.MP emacs.tgz Description: Unix tar archive -- Manuel Giraud

Re: re emacs23 update

2011-03-15 Thread Mike Belopuhov
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Manuel Giraud wrote: > Mike Belopuhov writes: > >> re, >> >> it turns out that SIGIO handling in emacs incorporates too many >> workarounds, especially when running under X and at this point >> it's impossible (at least for me) to grasp through the code and >> fin

Re: re emacs23 update

2011-03-15 Thread David Coppa
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > re, > > it turns out that SIGIO handling in emacs incorporates too many > workarounds, especially when running under X and at this point > it's impossible (at least for me) to grasp through the code and > find why it fails to work with xcb

Re: re emacs23 update

2011-03-15 Thread Manuel Giraud
Mike Belopuhov writes: > re, > > it turns out that SIGIO handling in emacs incorporates too many > workarounds, especially when running under X and at this point > it's impossible (at least for me) to grasp through the code and > find why it fails to work with xcb or X in general. > > but fortuna