June 1998 - XEmacs-Beta - XEmacs Mailing List Archives

Raymond Toy

Martin Buchholz <martin(a)xemacs.org> writes: > > For the record, XEmacs builds just fine (for me :) on Solaris 2.5.1 > and Solaris 2.6, with similar configurations (gcc 2.8, CFLAGS=-O3. mule) > > If you're mixing Solaris' OpenWindows with a grafted-on X11R6, you can > expect surprises. Someone who runs such a configuration will have to > debug it. I've always figured that the whole point to running Solaris > was to get the (by now) reasonably stable, industry standard OS, and > not muck around too much with system components like X11. > I don't know what Dan's config is, but it's not just that I'm using some grafted on X11R6 on top of OpenWindows, because without changing any config, it works beautifully using gcc 2.7.2.x (as this message shows). By the same token, why use gcc 2.8 when there's the wonderful Sun cc for you to use (if you have the bucks)? I do want to build with plain old Openwindows someday, but I'm to lazy right now to change my setup so that this works. "industry standard" is so vague as to be meaningless, especially when there are other OS's out there like AIX, DEC, etc. (Not having used any of these, I assume they're not identical to Solaris.) :-) :-) > If you are the adventurous type, and native Solaris is too dull, why > not choose Linux/Sparc? Or at least Solaris 2.6, which comes with > X11R6, and a raft of cool new bugs? Doesn't every piece of software come with cool new bugs? Ray

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Qt/XEmacs (was: Re: Bug (I think) limit on popup menu strings) 26 years, 5 months

Hrvoje Niksic

Per Abrahamsen <abraham(a)dina.kvl.dk> writes: > However, XEmacs _is_ partly owned by the FSF. Distributing a Qt > version of XEmacs would almost force them to take action of some > kind. A legal battle (or even just threads) between the FSF and the > XEmacs developers would be a PR disaster for the whole free software > community. Agreed 100%. (all of my code contributions to XEmacs are copyrighted by the FSF, for example.) -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- Sauron is alive in Argentina!

1 participants
0 comments

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

Adrian Aichner

>>>>> "sb" == SL Baur <steve(a)vmailer.xemacs.org> writes: >> I didn't call it a bug and I don't think it is. Do you have pointers >> to get makeinfo running under Windows NT? I started with >> texinfo-3.11, which requires autoconf, automake autoheader, ... >> Being able to generate the info files with XEmacs would be a nicer >> alternative to have, I think. sb> Do you have the capability to deal with tar.gz? If not I suppose we sb> can make a .zip for them. Either would be fine with me. Are you referring to making a .tar.gz or .zip of makeinfo? I would just like to have a simple way to procude .info files from .texi under Windows NT for XEmacs Beta testing and documentation corrections. If it's easy to get hold of makeinfo.exe, that would be fine with me. Regards, Adrian -- Adrian Aichner Applications Engineer Teradyne GmbH Semiconductor Test Group Telephone +49/89/41861(0)-208 Dingolfinger Straße 2 Fax +49/89/41861-217 D-81673 MÜNCHEN E-mail aichner(a)ecf.teradyne.com

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Bug (I think) limit on popup menu strings 26 years, 5 months

Hrvoje Niksic

Rebecca Ore <rebecca.ore(a)op.net> writes: > Both. Qt licensing says only free for freeware. Yeah, bot not for Windows software. I wouldn't like XEmacs to touch Qt with a ten-foot pole. > If the Gnome people (would stop writing irc clients) would start to > realize the importance of a lightweight office suite, then they > might be farther ahead. I'm on the Gnome list, and I can guarantee that there are people *not* writing IRC clients out there. Somewhere. :-) -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- Oh lord won't you buy me a color TV...

1 participants
0 comments

I can't read Ben's realaudio files under solaris 26 years, 5 months

Didier Verna

raplayer tells me that these are not real audio files. BTW, the extension is .rm. I'd only seen .ra files til now. Is it a different format ? --Didier

2 participants
1 comments

Re: I can't read Ben's realaudio files under solaris 26 years, 5 months

SL Baur

Didier Verna <verna(a)inf.enst.fr> writes: > raplayer tells me that these are not real audio files. BTW, the > extension is .rm. I'd only seen .ra files til now. Is it a different format ? It's real audio, and I can hear them. -- This is a temporary e-mail address while I'm alpha testing Vmailer.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Bug (I think) limit on popup menu strings 26 years, 5 months

Didier Verna

Olivier Galibert <galibert(a)pobox.com> writes: > On Mon, Jun 08, 1998 at 10:47:16PM -0700, Ben Wing wrote: > [Nobody's familiar with the lwlib code anymore] > > Do you think we should aim at removing it (using motif/lesstif, gtk, > Qt, whatever (all of them ?)) ? If yes, gtk sounds the best choice to me. --didier

1 participants
0 comments

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

SL Baur

Adrian Aichner <aichner(a)ecf.teradyne.com> writes: >>>>>> "sb" == SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes: sb> Using makeinfo is a feature not a bug. > I didn't call it a bug and I don't think it is. Do you have pointers > to get makeinfo running under Windows NT? I started with > texinfo-3.11, which requires autoconf, automake autoheader, ... > Being able to generate the info files with XEmacs would be a nicer > alternative to have, I think. Do you have the capability to deal with tar.gz? If not I suppose we can make a .zip for them. sb> The texinfo files are not intended to be formatted by the end user. > By `formatted' you mean converted to info format from the texti > sources, right? Correct. sb> Formatting documents with multibyte characters with XEmacs/Mule was sb> done out of expediency (I still have no capability for dealing with sb> TeX documents with multibyte characters outside of XEmacs/Mule). > Oh, so I couldn't use `batch-texinfo-format' for a configuration > --without-mule? Correct. sb> Formatting with the editor instead of makeinfo is much slower. > Yes, but who cares? I do.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Bug (I think) limit on popup menu strings 26 years, 5 months

Hrvoje Niksic

SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes: > I see another bug that was _not_ present with 20.4. Why are grayed > out menu items selectable (or drawn with three shading) just like > selectable items? That's a feature. I think Glynn originally introduced it for keyboard menu traversal, but it doesn't look too ugly (to me) to make them mouse-selectable too, so it stayed. -- 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.

4 participants
3 comments

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

Adrian Aichner

>>>>> "sb" == SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes: Hello Steven, sb> Adrian Aichner <aichner(a)ecf.teradyne.com> writes: >> Hello texi-perts! >> Seems like the info manuals can almost be produced by xemacs -batch, >> hence removing the requirement for the makeinfo program, provided the >> man/ Makefiles get adjusted or the step is performed manual (see >> interactive function `makeinfo-file' atend. sb> Using makeinfo is a feature not a bug. I didn't call it a bug and I don't think it is. Do you have pointers to get makeinfo running under Windows NT? I started with texinfo-3.11, which requires autoconf, automake autoheader, ... Being able to generate the info files with XEmacs would be a nicer alternative to have, I think. sb> The texinfo files are not intended to be formatted by the end user. By `formatted' you mean converted to info format from the texti sources, right? sb> Formatting documents with multibyte characters with XEmacs/Mule was sb> done out of expediency (I still have no capability for dealing with sb> TeX documents with multibyte characters outside of XEmacs/Mule). Oh, so I couldn't use `batch-texinfo-format' for a configuration --without-mule? sb> Formatting with the editor instead of makeinfo is much slower. Yes, but who cares? sb> The info files are provided in a standard tarball so there isn't a sb> need to work around the possible absence of makeinfo. Maybe it's one of those features I'm the only one to appreciate :-) Adrian -- Adrian Aichner Applications Engineer Teradyne GmbH Semiconductor Test Group Telephone +49/89/41861(0)-208 Dingolfinger Straße 2 Fax +49/89/41861-217 D-81673 MÜNCHEN E-mail aichner(a)ecf.teradyne.com

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 June 1998