September 1998 - XEmacs-Beta - XEmacs Mailing List Archives

Re: Portability and usage statistics (was Re: Seppuku and x_IO_error_handler() ) 27 years, 2 months

Jan Vroonhof

SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes: > O.K. So let's try Solaris. It's the most popular commercial Unix in > the market, surely it is getting developer support? *Wrong*! I have been tracking down every weird hang, non-exiting subprocesses etc etc etc on Solaris _except_ for the EOS stuff. I do not use Workshop myself (because of the "hanging subprocess problem" caused by tooltalk, that I have been unable to find) and moreover there are lots of different versions of the product. Please note that the Sun XEmacs versions has the text "SunSoft provides support for the Workshop integration only". That however means that if EOS crashes, you first knock on Sun's door. I heard rumours that they indeed improved the thing in the upcomming Workshop. So Solaris is very well supported, except for 1. EOS 2. Solaris 2.6. Most of the new weird stuff reported by XEmacs users is on 2.6. It might or might not have something to do with the new OS. This will change as more of use move too 2.6. (For me there is currently one unresolved problem with 2.6 that was in 2.4. the guy has aggreed to wait for 21.0 and then we try again to find it.) > We continue to get crash reports with annotations tickled by the EOS > support. There have been hundreds if not thousands of these reports > since they've been aimed at me. So where are they? I can only see the ones that also come on c.e.xemacs. As far as me is conserned bug reports go into a black hole because we lack any kind of bug tracking system. (Bugzilla looks good). > Is there any developer running with Sun Solaris? Hello? Calling me a developer is stretching things, but yes I use XEmacs on Solaris and it works very well thank you. Jan

1 participants
0 comments

Re: #! comment !# for scheme? 27 years, 2 months

Michael Sperber

>>>>> "Karl" == Karl M Hegbloom <karlheg(a)inetarena.com> writes: Karl> I'm trying to make `scheme.el' cause #! comments !# to work, akin to Karl> the Common Lisp #| comments |#, but cannot get it to work. I'm very Karl> frustrated trying; I've copied it straight from `lisp-mode.el': Karl> (modify-syntax-entry ?# "' 58" scheme-mode-syntax-table) Karl> (modify-syntax-entry ?\! "_ 67" scheme-mode-syntax-table) Karl> ... but still when I visit a scheme file with: Karl> #!/usr/bin/guile -s Karl> !# Karl> ... at the top, that section is not highlighted by font-lock as a Karl> comment like it should. Karl> I know this isn't really a very important thing to do... but it Karl> should work, shouldn't it? What's wrong? Here's the code I use, written for Gambit. It contains code stolen from Barry's cc-mode. (defun gambit-install-comment-syntax () "Configure #| ... |# comments." ;; XEmacs 19 and beyond use 8-bit modify-syntax-entry flags. ;; Emacs 19 uses a 1-bit flag. We will have to set up our ;; syntax tables differently to handle this. ;; Stolen from CC Mode. (let ((table (copy-syntax-table)) entry) (modify-syntax-entry ?a ". 12345678" table) (cond ;; XEmacs 19, and beyond Emacs 19.34 ((arrayp table) (setq entry (aref table ?a)) ;; In Emacs, table entries are cons cells (if (consp entry) (setq entry (car entry)))) ;; XEmacs 20 ((fboundp 'get-char-table) (setq entry (get-char-table ?a table))) ;; before and including Emacs 19.34 ((and (fboundp 'char-table-p) (char-table-p table)) (setq entry (car (char-table-range table [?a])))) ;; incompatible (t (error "Gambit mode is incompatible with this version of Emacs"))) (if (= (logand (lsh entry -16) 255) 255) (progn ;; XEmacs 19 & 20 (modify-syntax-entry ?# "(#58" scheme-mode-syntax-table) (modify-syntax-entry ?| ". 67" scheme-mode-syntax-table)) ;; Emacs 19 & 20 (modify-syntax-entry ?# "(#14b" scheme-mode-syntax-table) (modify-syntax-entry ?| ". 23b" scheme-mode-syntax-table)))) -- Cheers =8-} Chipsy Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla

1 participants
0 comments

Re: passwd.el: xemacs-base or efs? 27 years, 2 months

Michael Sperber

>>>>> "Karl" == Karl M Hegbloom <karlheg(a)inetarena.com> writes: Karl> I've got two passwd.el files, one in efs and the other in Karl> xemacs-base. Which one is the right one? You have an old version of EFS. It's no longer there. -- Cheers =8-} Chipsy Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla

1 participants
0 comments

Re: package annoyance 27 years, 2 months

Michael Sperber

>>>>> "Darryl" == Darryl Okahata <darrylo(a)sr.hp.com> writes: Darryl> greg(a)alphatech.com wrote: >> If you have 2 versions of a package (eg, the one that the sys admin >> downloaded with your SUMO binary and a newer one you've installed in >> ~/.xemacs/packages) you get these irritating warnings on startup: >> >> (1) (warning/warning) Autoload error in: >> /home/greg/.xemacs/packages/lisp/pcl-cvs/auto-autoloads: >> Already loaded >> >> Isn't this an expected usage, one which should not spew warnings? Darryl> I'd say that this should not be happening. Sure. But the current package layout makes it quite difficult to even detect this. There's simply not enough information in the package layout, so the right fix is going to be quite involved. It'll have to wait until 21.1 or 21.2. Darryl> I'd also go further and say that: Darryl> * Packages in ~/.xemacs/packages should probably take precedence over Darryl> any system-installed ones. They do. Darryl> As it is, it appears that the system- installed ones are Darryl> loaded before those in ~/.xemacs/packages. Exactly. This is what precedence means in this context. You want the stuff taking precedence to be loaded after so they can override whatever was before. The problem is that the system-installed ones are loaded *instead* of those in ~/.xemacs/packages. (Well, not really, but the auto-autoloads loaded second doesn't *do* anything.) I'll submit a patch to change the order for now. -- Cheers =8-} Chipsy Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla

1 participants
0 comments

#! comment !# for scheme? 27 years, 2 months

Karl M. Hegbloom

I'm trying to make `scheme.el' cause #! comments !# to work, akin to the Common Lisp #| comments |#, but cannot get it to work. I'm very frustrated trying; I've copied it straight from `lisp-mode.el': (modify-syntax-entry ?# "' 58" scheme-mode-syntax-table) (modify-syntax-entry ?\! "_ 67" scheme-mode-syntax-table) ... but still when I visit a scheme file with: #!/usr/bin/guile -s !# ... at the top, that section is not highlighted by font-lock as a comment like it should. I know this isn't really a very important thing to do... but it should work, shouldn't it? What's wrong?

1 participants
0 comments

Re: 21.0 hassles 27 years, 2 months

Pete Ware

SUMO wrestlers. You know, really, really, big guys. --pete

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Portability and usage statistics (was Re: Seppuku and x_IO_error_handler() ) 27 years, 2 months

Karl M. Hegbloom

I think the main reason that those apps are non-portable is that the people who write them have access only to Linux. They simply do not know how to write them in a portable style, nor do they envision ever owning a computer that runs any other Unix but Linux.

2 participants
1 comments

passwd.el: xemacs-base or efs? 27 years, 2 months

Karl M. Hegbloom

I've got two passwd.el files, one in efs and the other in xemacs-base. Which one is the right one?

1 participants
0 comments

pcl-cvs synching issues 27 years, 2 months

Greg Klanderman

Hi, I'm in the process of committing Karl's synching work on pcl-cvs and want to raise a few issues. - First, the elib stuff has been removed from pcl-cvs. Hence Karl's elib package needs to be imported into the cvs.xemacs.org repository and package-compile.el needs updating. - The file generic-sc.el is included in the pcl-cvs package but is not actually part of pcl-cvs. I would like our pcl-cvs package to mirror the one distributed by Greg Woods (he will fold in our changes) so I feel generic-sc should be moved elsewhere. Suggestions? - There are several other .el's that come with pcl-cvs as distributed by Greg Woods which are primarily for debugging and should not make it into the binkits. I would still like them to appear in the srckits and in the repository. Currently we have in XEmacs.rules: $(RCOPY) ChangeLog *.el* $(EXTRA_SOURCES) $(STAGING)/lisp/$(PACKAGE) the "*.el*" part is kinda losing... I'm sending a patch that creates a variable settable from a package makefile. It will default to "*.el*" if unset. - I have tagged our previos pcl-cvs package as "pcl-cvs-r1-11". I am recommending that XEmacs 21.0 distribute this version since there is further synching and testing to be done before I'm confident of releasing the newer version. greg

1 participants
0 comments

21.0 hassles 27 years, 2 months

Pete Ware

Well, I'm embarrased. As the person guilty of contributing the initial packaging code, I found it rather difficult to actually use the stuff. First, I think the INSTALL file is too complicated. Let's cover the simple (and typical) cases first and then bury the user with details later. It needs to be more "cookbook" instead of "textbook" (example below). Maybe it could get organized as some web pages that can narrow the configuration down to what the user has selected. Next, it is really difficult to figure out what lisp files need to be downloaded and where they go. Yes, SUMO is the way to go for 21.0 but that needs to be clearer in the installation files. The install step didn't create the packages directory -- which would then give me errors during installation of packages. For whatever reason, using the menus to select a bunch of packages Options ==> Customize ==> Emacs ==> Packages Even after selecting them, then Options ==> Update Packages didn't do anything. The package descriptive text needs to be longer. What are "oa", "os", "wp" (yes, _I_ know). Why would I want to get "Miscellaneous support for editing text files"? If I don't download the "Time Package" does that mean XEmacs won't display the time and date on the modeline? Following is an example of what I mean by simplified INSTALL instructions. 1. Download the distribution (typically from ftp.xemacs.org:/pub/xemacs/beta/xemacs-21.0) xemacs-21.0-b54.tar.gz xemacs-21.0-b54-elc.tar.gz xemacs-21.0-b54-info.tar.gz 2. Download some important lisp files: xemacs-sumo-19980811-nomule.tar.gz [or from packages/binary-files] xemacs-base-1.23-pkg.tar.gz efs-1.08-pkg.tar.gz mail-lib-1.16-pkg.tar.gz 3. Extract the sources: gzip -dc xemacs-21.0-b54.tar.gz | tar xf - gzip -dc xemacs-21.0-b54-elc.tar.gz | tar xf - gzip -dc xemacs-21.0-b54-info.tar.gz | tar xf - 4. Configure and build (Note: read further for options; this covers 90% of systems): cd xemacs-21.0-b54 ./configure make 5. Test src/xemacs 6. Install basic xemacs (this and the following steps may require root access): make install 7. Install basic packages (may need root access): cd <prefix>/lib/xemacs-21.0 mkdir packages cd packages gzip -dc <download>/xemacs-base-1.23-pgk.tar.gz gzip -dc <download>/efs-1.08-pkg.tar.gz gzip -dc <download>/mail-lib-1.16-pkg.tar.gz 8. Select more packages (may need root access): xemacs Options ==> Customize ==> Emacs ==> Packages ==> Packages... 9. Install packages (may need root access): Options ==> Customize ==> Update Packages --pete

3 participants
2 comments

2025

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 September 1998