October 1998 - XEmacs-Beta - XEmacs Mailing List Archives

Re: help me fix package-get-base breakage 26 years, 1 month

Greg Klanderman

>>>>> "sb" == SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes: sb> sb> I've uploaded package-index.LATEST.pgp, please give that a shot. not readable - need to change permissions.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: [patch] automatic loading of package-get-base 26 years, 1 month

Greg Klanderman

>>>>> "sb" == SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes: sb> sb> Greg Klanderman <greg(a)alphatech.com> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org: >> I'd like to change the format of the package index file to sb> sb> That's fine with me. Do you wish this to happen immediately? That would be ideal. Can you see my post about the format to xemacs-patches - there are 2 options, one which requires changing package-info.in for all packages but is a little cleaner. Let me know which you prefer as soon as you can. sb> I'm going to release 21.2-beta3 this afternoon/evening along with a sb> handful of package updates for a full dose of new package UI testing. Will you commit my package-get-base patches too? The package UI stuff is broken otherwise. Also Jan's "big screwup in package-ui" one. If so I am close to another patch that should go in, depending on your choice above. sb> Why don't you fix up the latest package-index on ftp.xemacs.org, drop sb> the modified copy in: sb> ftp://altair.xemacs.org/incoming/ But it wouldn't contain the updates you're about to make, or is that just so you don't have to rebuild all packages? If you want I can run a keyboard macro across the new one you create later, I've done it here. But I'd prefer it get created automatically with the build process so that part also gets tested.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: help me fix package-get-base breakage 26 years, 1 month

SL Baur

Greg Klanderman <greg(a)alphatech.com> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org: >>>>>> "sb" == SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes: sb> Greg> I'm working on a patch to fix package-get-base. Greg> Can I get the following from you: sb> sb> Get pgp keys from sb> ftp://ftp.xemacs.org/pub/xemacs/pgp-keys/ sb> sb> or from any PGP key server. sb> sb> I made a symlink to package-index.LATEST in /pub/xemacs/packages/ and sb> uploaded the signature. Does the .sig file need a symlink too? > Can we have the package-index.LATEST file just be the output of > M-x mc-sign, ie. contain the text and the key in one file? I've uploaded package-index.LATEST.pgp, please give that a shot.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: [patch] automatic loading of package-get-base 26 years, 1 month

SL Baur

Greg Klanderman <greg(a)alphatech.com> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org: ... >>> Outstanding issues: > I'd like to change the format of the package index file to > * be able to share the same format for updates as well as > the entire database. > * be more easily parseable from elisp, so i can avoid using > `eval' on elisp gotten over ftp. yes, it is pgp signed, > but still probably better to be as secure as possible. > (guess Pete Ware got to me.. ;-) > I propose a sequence of entries in the following format, with no > setq or what have you wrapped around it > (package-get-add-base-entry ... > )) > I'd add a function of that name, so these could easily be evalled, > but I would use `read' and parse the sexp in the package-get.el > code. I would continue to have the header: > ;; Package Index file -- Do not edit manually. > and put markers between entries: > ;;;＠＠＠ > How's that sound? That's fine with me. Do you wish this to happen immediately? I'm going to release 21.2-beta3 this afternoon/evening along with a handful of package updates for a full dose of new package UI testing. Why don't you fix up the latest package-index on ftp.xemacs.org, drop the modified copy in: ftp://altair.xemacs.org/incoming/

1 participants
0 comments

Re: [bug] auctex 1.14 autoloads say 1.09 26 years, 1 month

SL Baur

Greg Klanderman <greg(a)alphatech.com> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org: > This bug has existed for a few revisions now. > Why just auctex? Because I made a private auto-autoloads.el generation rule for auctex. The private rule is broken. I also see some bogus code and defaults in autoload.el. Fix in the next update.

1 participants
0 comments

[bug] auctex 1.14 autoloads say 1.09 26 years, 1 month

Greg Klanderman

This bug has existed for a few revisions now. Why just auctex?

1 participants
0 comments

Re: [rms@gnu.org: Re: 20.3.1 nit: set-face-* commands] 26 years, 1 month

Hrvoje Niksic

Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof(a)math.ethz.ch> writes: > Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes: > > [This Lisp FAQ talking about Common Lisp is it.) Of course it is. But when implementing Common Lisp features, we really should be sticking to the Common Lisp specifications. Anything else would *really* suck. > > When a function takes both types of arguments, all the > > optional arguments must be specified explicitly before any of > > the keyword arguments may be specified. > > Can be not just ditch this requirement (which I consider extremely > silly). I don't find it all that silly. Emacs Lisp is even worse than Common Lisp in this respect -- CL keywords at least have special properties, their own obarray and everything. Elisp keywords are just symbols beginning with `:'. So why shouldn't an optional argument receive a symbol beginning with `:'? > > So, adding keyword arguments to a function that already accepts a > > bunch of optional arguments (for historical reasons) would only > > introduce *more* problems and confusion. > > What if you can also specify the "optional" arguments through > keywords then you can just use all keywords or just positional > arguments. That runs into the same problems as described above. -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- - When I die, shall I not be like Enkidu? - Like, no, man, you'll be, like, totally dead.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: [rms@gnu.org: Re: 20.3.1 nit: set-face-* commands] 26 years, 1 month

William M. Perry

Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof(a)math.ethz.ch> writes: > Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes: > > [This Lisp FAQ talking about Common Lisp is it.) > > > When a function takes both types of arguments, all the optional > > arguments must be specified explicitly before any of the keyword > > arguments may be specified. > > Can be not just ditch this requirement (which I consider extremely > silly). > > > So, adding keyword arguments to a function that already accepts a > > bunch of optional arguments (for historical reasons) would only > > introduce *more* problems and confusion. > > What if you can also specify the "optional" arguments through keywords > then you can just use all keywords or just positional arguments. How do you propose to know the difference between: (read-passwd "Password: " :default "Foo" :confirm t ) and (read-passwd "Password: " :default "Foo") Where the user was just passing in any old thing for the 'confirm' optional parameter? It just has to be non-nil. -Bill P.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: "21.0 \"Pyrenean-pre4\" XEmacs Lucid" can't see my packages 26 years, 1 month

Jan Vroonhof

Adrian Aichner <aichner(a)ecf.teradyne.com> writes: > Could somebody please tell me which patches I need to install on top > of vanilla emacs-version "21.0 \"Pyrenean-pre4\" XEmacs Lucid" to get > the package system up and running again? Greg's package list fetch patch and my bug fix. Both are in the uuencoded patch I sent you on this list > [1] Please note that my installation on system-configuration > "i386-pc-win32" really shows "List _ Install", while the installation > on system-configuration "sparc-sun-solaris2.5.1" shows "List & Install". I think XEmacs on NT uses & as the menu accelerator. Maybe some of the NT specialisty should look into this. Jan

1 participants
0 comments

Re: "21.0 \"Pyrenean-pre4\" XEmacs Lucid" can't see my packages 26 years, 1 month

Greg Klanderman

>>>>> "APA" == Adrian Aichner <aichner(a)ecf.teradyne.com> writes: APA> APA> Could somebody please tell me which patches I need to install on top APA> of vanilla emacs-version "21.0 \"Pyrenean-pre4\" XEmacs Lucid" to get APA> the package system up and running again? There will be further updates tonight, but applying my patch from last night should get you going, ie subject= "[patch] automatic loading of package-get-base". greg

1 participants
0 comments

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

XEmacs-Beta October 1998