June 1998 - XEmacs-Beta - XEmacs Mailing List Archives

Re: Binary distributions [ was Re: [PROPOSAL] fix for bad Xrefs ... ] 26 years, 5 months

SL Baur

Jonathan Harris <jhar(a)tardis.ed.ac.uk> writes: ... > A sensible install tree for XEmacs on mswindows might look like: This should be doable with the right tweaking. > PROGS\XEmacs\ <====== --prefix > packages\ > XEmacs-21.0\ <====== --libdir > bin <====== --bindir > info > lisp I presume you also wish the etc/ dir to go in the same directory as bin, info and lisp. > where PROGS should default to "C:\Program Files". Whatever. > Unfortunately, XEmacs currently fails to cope with such a layout because > it expects a UNIX-style install tree; Dead wrong. If you can't get a layout like this, it's because xemacs.mak is not sufficiently flexible. Wish: Apache 1.3 has a new option for configure called `--layout'. When this option is fed to configure it doesn't configure anything and prints out a map of how Apache will be installed. It would be nice for XEmacs to have the same feature. -- This is a temporary e-mail address while I'm alpha testing VMailer.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Binary distributions [ was Re: [PROPOSAL] fix for bad Xrefs ... ] 26 years, 5 months

Colin Rafferty

Darryl Okahata writes: > Jonathan Harris <jhar(a)tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> A sensible install tree for XEmacs on mswindows might look like: >> >> PROGS\XEmacs\ >> packages\ >> XEmacs-21.0\ >> bin >> info >> lisp >> >> where PROGS should default to "C:\Program Files". > What's the philosophy for packages? A scheme such as the above > works only if packages are independent of XEmacs versions. However, in > practice, I have not found this to be true; packages tend to depend on a > particular XEmacs version or vice-versa. Actually, this is not the case at all. Packages are generally forward-compatible with XEmacs. For example, I currently build and run a full 21.0 with no packages at all. All the packages come from using 20.4 as my "package". I would say that I am a power user, I use the XEmacs functionality to the full extent of the law, and I don't miss anything. Anyway, I would say that I am a person who believes in a package directory separate from the version, the same way that site-lisp (now obsolete) is on a separate path. -- Colin

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Binary distributions [ was Re: [PROPOSAL] fix for bad Xrefs ... ] 26 years, 5 months

Hrvoje Niksic

Darryl Okahata <darrylo(a)sr.hp.com> writes: > Jonathan Harris <jhar(a)tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > A sensible install tree for XEmacs on mswindows might look like: > > > > PROGS\XEmacs\ > > packages\ > > XEmacs-21.0\ > > bin > > info > > lisp > > > > where PROGS should default to "C:\Program Files". > > What's the philosophy for packages? A scheme such as the above > works only if packages are independent of XEmacs versions. They are, so Jonathan is correct. > However, in practice, I have not found this to be true; packages > tend to depend on a particular XEmacs version or vice-versa. No practice has been established yet, since no XEmacs version has been shipped with package support... -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- Your lucky number today is 29842924728. Look for it everywhere.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Binary distributions [ was Re: [PROPOSAL] fix for bad Xrefs ... ] 26 years, 5 months

Hrvoje Niksic

Darryl Okahata <darrylo(a)sr.hp.com> writes: > 1. The XEmacs distribution is repackaged and compressed into a > "proprietary" format. While you might be able to call this "mere > aggregation", I think this is stretching the point, as XEmacs is > not in a form that is not easily separated from InstallShield. But of course it is, if we ship full XEmacs sources on the same CD, separately from InstallShield. > 2. The XEmacs distribution is repackaged into a single, large > executable, which also contains large parts from InstallShield. > This is the most useful form (just run the executable to install > XEmacs), but I have difficulty conceiving this as an > "aggregation". Yes, there is a precedent in self-extracting > executables, but this is more than just a self-extracting > executable. I think of this as a "work as a whole". I have difficulty thinking of this as "work as a whole", and so do the Cygnus folks. I'll send a query to Stallman. -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- Manic depression is cool... your body can make its own drugs.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: [PROPOSAL] fix for bad Xrefs in man/*.texi 26 years, 5 months

Hrvoje Niksic

SL Baur <steve(a)vmailer.xemacs.org> writes: > Do you have the capability to deal with tar.gz? If not I suppose we > can make a .zip for them. I think Windows 95 and Windows NT can deal with .tar.gz just fine, because the most popular unzipping extension (WinZip) has been reported to handle them. Still, when we make binary distributions for Windows, it would probably make sense to zip them, for the sake of convenience. -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- A radioactive cat has eighteen half-lives.

5 participants
6 comments

RE: Binary distributions [ was Re: [PROPOSAL] fix for bad Xrefs . .. ] 26 years, 5 months

Jeff Paulsen

-----Original Message----- From: Hrvoje Niksic [mailto:hniksic＠srce.hr] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 11:53 AM To: XEmacs Beta List Subject: Re: Binary distributions > Why would that be illegal, if the CD contains the XEmacs sources? Or, > do you mean that the CD should contain the sources to InstallShield -- Wouldn't this reading of the GPL also prevent the use of self-extracting PKZipped files? If the GPL does prevent people from using non-open tools to produce binary distributions, then that's really annoying. My thought is this: creating an install set using InstallShield does not create a "modified work", but rather creates a "mere aggregation". An install set does not "contain" the program in the sense that the GPL means "contain" and thus is not a "work based on the program" under section 0. It is possible that the install set is, in fact, the "distribution medium" as per the last paragraph of section 2. All GPL references are from version 2. -- Jeff Paulsen jeff.paulsen(a)poorman-douglas.com

2 participants
1 comments

Re: Binary distributions [ was Re: [PROPOSAL] fix for bad Xrefs ... ] 26 years, 5 months

Raymond Toy

Olivier Galibert <galibert(a)pobox.com> writes: > On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 09:25:58AM -0700, Darryl Okahata wrote: > > (unless someone has access to the full version of InstallShield5) > > I have. Now, afaik, distributing such a binary is illegal[1]. If you > can convince me that I'm wrong, and provide me with binaries, I'll > probably be able to make a fully fledged autoinstalling executable for > the release. > > OG. > > [1] Commercial/non commercial use is not relevant here. GPL is. Doesn't the cygwin stuff use Install Shield to build? (Perhaps it's the limited version?) How does Cygnus get around this illegality? Ray

3 participants
2 comments

Re: Binary distributions [ was Re: [PROPOSAL] fix for bad Xrefs ... ] 26 years, 5 months

Hrvoje Niksic

Olivier Galibert <galibert(a)pobox.com> writes: > On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 03:17:58PM -0400, Raymond Toy wrote: > > Doesn't the cygwin stuff use Install Shield to build? (Perhaps it's > > the limited version?) How does Cygnus get around this illegality? > > I dunno whether they do. But being the copyright holders, they don't > need to abide by *any* license to redistribute their works. Cygnus cannot be the copyright holder of all that is in Cygwin. Most of it is likely copyright FSF. -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- Union break!

1 participants
0 comments

Re: toolkit wars again 26 years, 5 months

Hrvoje Niksic

Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof(a)math.ethz.ch> writes: > Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes: > > > It would be nice to have Gtk support in XEmacs. However, it doesn't > > mean that we should lose the Xt support, at least as far as I'm > > concerned. Qt is out, because it's C++ and because it's not free. [... quote from gnu.misc.discuss ...] I've seen that. However, the last thing I heard, Gtk 1.1 will support multiple X displays. We can simply wait -- not that we're in a hurry or anything... -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- Personifiers Unite! You have nothing to lose but Mr. Dignity!

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Binary distributions [ was Re: [PROPOSAL] fix for bad Xrefs ... ] 26 years, 5 months

Hrvoje Niksic

Olivier Galibert <galibert(a)pobox.com> writes: > On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 09:25:58AM -0700, Darryl Okahata wrote: > > (unless someone has access to the full version of InstallShield5) > > I have. Now, afaik, distributing such a binary is illegal[1]. [...] > [1] Commercial/non commercial use is not relevant here. GPL is. Why would that be illegal, if the CD contains the XEmacs sources? Or, do you mean that the CD should contain the sources to InstallShield -- which would be ridiculous, because it's impossible to achieve! -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- Do not meddle in the affairs of troff, for it is subtle and quick to anger.

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 June 1998