December 1998 - XEmacs-Beta - XEmacs Mailing List Archives

Jan Vroonhof

SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes: > Truth be told, I'm (somewhat) less worried about filling disks than > overflowing quota, but the effects on the user are identical and the > steps XEmacs has to take to not puke and die are the same. Normally /tmp (the typical place for the intermediate extraction) is not under quote. Of course one wonders why XEmacs is using external utilities anyway :-) We already have tar-mode.el and libz linked in. Emacs never really has been compatible with the unix small utils philosophy anyway. Jan

4 participants
5 comments

Re: package badness 25 years, 12 months

Hrvoje Niksic

Kyle Jones <kyle_jones(a)wonderworks.com> writes: > I have a feeling that if we could get lstreams from between XEmacs > and the disk, I/O would be considerably faster. Did you mean to say "get out" or "remove"? Or am I totally misunderstanding the above sentence? -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!!

1 participants
0 comments

Re: What to build? 25 years, 12 months

SL Baur

Christian Nybø <s911254(a)stud.nhh.no> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org: > I download xemacs sources thru CVS, and made a successful build of > 21.0 "Pyrenean-pre9" XEmacs Lucid on mips-sgi-irix6.5 with gcc. "Pyrenean-pre9" is the latest and greatest XEmacs 21.0. If you are choosing one tree to test, that is the one. > But I wonder if my CVS settings are outdated. What different trees > do you developers want tested? 21.2 is too broken to use for my taste[1], but it is probably worth trying out if you have the inclination, CPU cycles and diskspace. > The file xemacs-20/CVS/Repository contains the line > usr/CVSroot/XEmacs/xemacs-20 That's fine. The main repository name is now plain `xemacs', but `xemacs-20' will still work for backwards compatibility. Footnotes: [1] isearch is 100% fucked up again.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Licence question 25 years, 12 months

Hrvoje Niksic

Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof(a)math.ethz.ch> writes: > The XEmacs info files still have the GPL v1 as the first node. Is > that intentional? Most likely not. -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- Don't get even, get odd!

1 participants
0 comments

Licence question 25 years, 12 months

Jan Vroonhof

The XEmacs info files still have the GPL v1 as the first node. Is that intentional? Jan

1 participants
0 comments

What to build? 25 years, 12 months

"Christian Nybø"

I download xemacs sources thru CVS, and made a successful build of 21.0 "Pyrenean-pre9" XEmacs Lucid on mips-sgi-irix6.5 with gcc. But I wonder if my CVS settings are outdated. What different trees do you developers want tested? The file xemacs-20/CVS/Repository contains the line usr/CVSroot/XEmacs/xemacs-20 tia, -- chr

1 participants
0 comments

Re: the splash buffer 25 years, 12 months

Didier Verna

Valdis Kletnieks writes: Valdis> On 03 Dec 1998 04:07:00 +0100, you said: >> "Matthew O. Persico" <mpersico(a)erols.com> writes: > I'd take the beautiful >> green marblized background on your window > frame and try that as the >> background. It's a lovely color. >> >> >> --==-=-= Content-Type: image/x-pixmap Content-Disposition: inline; >> filename="~/pics/slate.xpm" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 >> Content-Description: Background Valdis> Odd.. this looked like a pebbled dark grey surface, not the bright Valdis> green seen in the background of ths screen image? Yeah, I think Hrvoje read the message too fast and thought Mat was talking about the background of my XEmacs frame and not the titlebar, which is rather odd since Max said than Jenny had understood (I don't knopw how) that maybe John would finally join the general agreement that Percy raised on the matter of knowing whether Kenny would really accept that Andrew use the green color Flora proposed (she got it from Tom) in order to paint Alex's face without forgetting that Ben could get very jealous about that... I think we are very numerous to use `slate' as background pixmap. -- / / _ _ Didier Verna http://www.inf.enst.fr/~verna/ - / / - / / /_/ / E.N.S.T. INF C201.1 mailto:verna＠inf.enst.fr /_/ / /_/ / /__ / 46 rue Barrault Tel. (33) 01 45 81 73 46 75634 Paris cedex 13 Fax. (33) 01 45 81 31 19

1 participants
0 comments

To gnupg or not to gnupg ... (was Re: Assertion while pui-list-packages) 25 years, 12 months

SL Baur

Speaking of PGP signatures, we're at a crossroads. Future builds for distribution will be occurring on a server that is owned by a Japanese company but operated on United States soil. This might make usage of US domestic PGP problematic. Any encryption that is US exportable is unacceptable. It is possible to use gnupg instead, which at least bypasses the rsaref licensing issue, however the signatures generated by gnupg are incompatible with PGP 2.6 (which is what we're using now). I know what John Martin thinks about this. Any other comments? At this time I'm strongly in favor of moving forward to gnupg. Norbert Koch <n.koch(a)delta-ii.de> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org: ... > Signaling: (error "Package-get PGP signature failed to verify")

4 participants
3 comments

Re: the splash buffer 25 years, 12 months

Hrvoje Niksic

"Matthew O. Persico" <mpersico(a)erols.com> writes: > I'd take the beautiful green marblized background on your window > frame and try that as the background. It's a lovely color. -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- A sadist is a masochist who follows the Golden Rule.

2 participants
1 comments

Re: package badness 25 years, 12 months

SL Baur

Andy Piper <andyp(a)parallax.co.uk> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org: > At 15:41 02/12/98 -0800, Martin Buchholz wrote: >> I agree with Andy on this. If you don't have enough disk space for 2 >> copies of a package directory, your disk is about to explode anyways. Even if true, it is no excuse for XEmacs package installation to puke its guts out. > One could argue that if your disk is likely to explode then installing > XEmacs will make it do so anyway :) Packages differ wildly in size. The top 4 account for about 33% total disk usage. Depending upon what has been installed, that may be higher. For me, I see 71MB in a fully bytecompiled xemacs-package tree and 53MB (39.2MB XEmacs, 13.8MB Mule) for what I have installed[1]. The "Big 4" packages: Gnus 6.3MB Leim 6.0MB Calc 5.6MB SKK 5.6MB = 23.5MB Writing as an expert in filling up disks of any size (:-), I repeat my contention that we have to take into account filling disks and doing something graceful when that occurs. I have blown out the disk I use for distribution building on numerous occasions. To complete summarization of disk usage. For building I see the following: 71MB XEmacs packages as of last night 45MB XEmacs 21.0-pre9 43MB XEmacs 21.2.4 For installation: 21.5MB Core 23.5MB "Steve" XEmacs package installation[2] 63.6MB Full XEmacs package installation For comparison, XEmacs 20.4: 50.1MB (Compressed Lisp) 67.6MB (Straight Installation) Based on the kind of software I have installed, I don't know whether I'm relieved or disappointed that XEmacs is no longer anywhere close in the running for largest software package I have installed. The record is held by Oracle database server which is asking for 700MB just for installation not counting the "at least 3" mount points it wishes for storing database stuffs. Footnotes: [1] I have all of the "Big 4" installed, so that's 44% for me. [2] I like very much the fact that without any Lisp .el compression, I have a 10% smaller installation of 21.0 with more features that _I want_ than 20.4 with Lisp .el compression.

3 participants
2 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 December 1998