May 1999 - XEmacs-Beta - XEmacs Mailing List Archives

Re: digital signature test, xemacs-dist@xemacs.org public key 25 years, 6 months

Neal D. Becker

If I read the message via gnus, then in the summary buffer choose Mailcrypt/verify-signature off the menu, I get: Found no signed message in this buffer. I guess that's because of the mime?

1 participants
0 comments

Test 25 years, 6 months

Kalleske

Test-e-Mail! Sämtliche eMails, die an diese Adresse (xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org) geschickt werden, werden weitergeleitet nach Kalleskeke(a)t-online.de !!! WARUM ??? (Bitte kontrollieren sie ihr e-Mail-Management-System)

1 participants
0 comments

Re: open parts 25 years, 6 months

Hrvoje Niksic

Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof(a)math.ethz.ch> writes: > 1. It is not documented > 2. 2 out of 3 official ways are doing it are broken (basically > because these parts of the Xt and Motif libraries weren't used > much). Both points really boil down to the need of someone shaking the dust off it. We've discussed this at the symposium, and the general conclusion was that nobody knows how external widget support really works.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: open parts 25 years, 6 months

Jan Vroonhof

nbecker(a)fred.net writes: > [typical advocacy stuff omited] > > I wonder whether an embedded xemacs could be useful? > The answer is "yes". In fact you can already do that using the so called "external widget" support (this is the Xt term for embedable objects). The communications is then done using gnuclient. However this is currently very difficult, because 1. It is not documented 2. 2 out of 3 official ways are doing it are broken (basically because these parts of the Xt and Motif libraries weren't used much). Generalizing this to Corba is the obvious net thing to do. Jan

1 participants
0 comments

Re: digital signature test, xemacs-dist@xemacs.org public key 25 years, 6 months

Jan Vroonhof

SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes: > Please test this if you can. If it works, I will resume signing files > on the XEmacs ftp site. Please check whether the old mailcrypt package-get combo does not give weird failure modes when used with a gnu pgp signed index. Jan

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Lisp, Siod and LyX, Guile and ANSI Lisp 25 years, 6 months

Hrvoje Niksic

sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes: > >>>>> "Uwe" == Uwe Brauer <oub(a)eucmos.sim.ucm.es> writes: > > Uwe> Thanks for the link. This I was looking for. As I understood it > Uwe> Guile is not considered seriously, why? > > The biggest shortcoming is its deep-rooted dependence on > conservative GC. Besides, nobody ever sent me any strong arguments > *for* Guile. The strongest argument for Guile is, as you state, "the biggest active development group." Guile is the future extension language of GNU, and using that might not be such a bad idea. But ultimately, a hypothetical replacement language should be chosen by its technical rather than political merit. > The thing that never ceases to amaze me is that, even though Guile > seems to have the biggest active developer group of all the Scheme > implementations, it is only slowly, if at all, catching up with the > implementation quality of other, more carefully designed and better > engineered Schemes, some of which are essentially one-man projects. I think the "open-source" model is deeply overhyped. Maybe someone will write a new essay that explains its shortcomings in some detail.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: XEmacs 21.1.2 lib-src/Makefile "utilities run internally by XEmacs" not being installed 25 years, 6 months

Hrvoje Niksic

SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes: > Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org: > ... > > Are you using GNU make? > > Yes. Try using the system make to repeat the bug. I remember seeing it and not being able to fix it. But then again, I didn't try very hard because OSF wasn't my platform of choice -- I simply used `gmake'.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Lisp, Siod and LyX, Guile and ANSI Lisp 25 years, 6 months

Michael Sperber

>>>>> "Uwe" == Uwe Brauer <oub(a)eucmos.sim.ucm.es> writes: Uwe> Thanks for the link. This I was looking for. As I understood it Guile Uwe> is not considered seriously, why? The biggest shortcoming is its deep-rooted dependence on conservative GC. Besides, nobody ever sent me any strong arguments *for* Guile. The thing that never ceases to amaze me is that, even though Guile seems to have the biggest active developer group of all the Scheme implementations, it is only slowly, if at all, catching up with the implementation quality of other, more carefully designed and better engineered Schemes, some of which are essentially one-man projects. -- Cheers =8-} Chipsy Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla

1 participants
0 comments

Re: XEmacs 21.1.2 lib-src/Makefile "utilities run internally by XEmacs" not being installed 25 years, 6 months

SL Baur

Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org: ... > Are you using GNU make? Yes. > Maybe he isn't. He is not. > I seem to remember this being fixed when GNU make is used. It's > probably a subtle bug in a Makefile. He sent me some more info off-line that I'll try to look at today. It's a must-fix for 21.1 issue. -- I protest the NATO war in Yugoslavia.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: digital signature test, xemacs-dist@xemacs.org public key 25 years, 6 months

SL Baur

[Thanks for the report. I'm going to go ahead and make new signed Sumos this afternoon.] Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka(a)jpl.org> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org: > gpg: Signature made 1999年05月27日 (木) 09時25分16秒 JST using DSA key ID DCF80B6B I saw that too. It's depressing that a poorly coded program like gpg handles multibyte characters in system messages properly and XEmacs doesn't ... -- I protest the NATO war in Yugoslavia.

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 May 1999