**Andreas wrote:
**still consider making the installation process easier as crucial for
XEmacs. Much more important than any new features.
**Cheers,
**Andreas
I agree with you, Andreas. When I recently installed 21.5.31 in
Slackware64, downloading from the XEmacs website, I could not install
packages. My son Byrel explained to me that you had to first manually
download and install (in the right place) a few packages in order
to get the rest of them with the package system. He told me what to do
since he knew where to put them, and what to install first.
I probably figured out the correct thing to do ~5 years ago, when I
first installed 21.4.22, but I forgot since then.
I am asking myself, Can't this be made easier for a new user who is
downloading from XEmac's own site? Should there not be enough of the
package
system in the main program to get the rest of it? Maybe that is the
wrong approach for some reason that i don't know?
There is so much a first-time user has to "know" to get to the point of
giving the editor a good test--there ought to be effort at making it
easier to try out, without
sacrificing things for experienced users.
Steve Mitchell
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
Hi,
There is a problem with running the mule-tests from the build
slaves. The problem can't be repeated when I run the same build
manually. When I run manually the mule tests completes, not 100% but
they are not aborted.
I think you can observe the problem in all builds, even the green
ones. (This is another strange thing that the buildbot sometimes
signals this as an error and sometimes not.)
Any ideas what this can come from and how to fix it?
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
Hi, XEmacs!
In syntax.c, update_syntax_cache calls
next_previous_single_property_change. This function searches for a
property change WITHIN THE ACCESSIBLE REGION.
However, when it drops off the end, update_syntax_cache wrongly sets its
boundary positions to the ABSOLUTE BEGINNING/END of buffer. This is
clearly wrong.
Here is a patch to fix this. Would somebody please check it and commit
it. This fix is necessary for CC Mode to work.
Thanks!
diff -r 1b054bc2ac40 src/syntax.c
--- a/src/syntax.c Sun Jul 03 14:17:39 2011 +0100
+++ b/src/syntax.c Sun Aug 07 10:17:22 2011 +0000
@@ -423,7 +424,7 @@
cache->object, -1, 1, 0);
if (lim < 0)
{
- next = buffer_or_string_absolute_end_byte (cache->object);
+ next = buffer_or_string_accessible_end_byte (cache->object);
at_begin = 1;
}
else
@@ -435,7 +436,7 @@
cache->object, -1, 0, 0);
if (lim < 0)
{
- prev = buffer_or_string_absolute_begin_byte (cache->object);
+ prev = buffer_or_string_accessible_begin_byte (cache->object);
at_end = 1;
}
else
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
Hi, XEmacs!
In the following minimal AWK program, using an unreleased AWK Mode,
1. # Commentary
2. /regexp/ {
3. }
ab cd
,there are "string" (7) syntax-table properties in extents on both the
slashes. forward-sexp and backward-sexp go wrong.
1. Place point at position a on L2 and do C-M-f. It goes to d, as
expected.
2. On L3, do C-c C-s (`c-show-syntactic-information').
3. Repeat 1. Point now falsely goes to c. Place point at d and do
C-M-b. Point falsely goes to b.
Indeed, the pattern is that XEmacs behaves as though the /s were just
ordinary characters rather than string delimiters.
I've tried dumping the extents on and between the slashes before and
after 2. Here are the results:
(a) on the first slash:
(14 . 15) (detachable t start-open t end-open t syntax-table (7))
(b) on the second slash:
(21 . 22) (detachable t start-open t end-open t syntax-table (7))
(c) on the characters in between:
(15 . 21) (detachable t end-open t face font-lock-string-face text-prop face)
(15 . 21) (detachable t end-open t text-prop font-lock font-lock t)
These extents do not change between steps 1 and 3. There are no further
extents on any character in "regexp".
I'm stumped. Would somebody please suggest to me what might be recording
whatever state it is which is fouling things up? TIA.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
Hi,
Back again on a stable network (Mobile network is cool but sometimes
to cool. :-() I'm planning to commit some code. (The patches have been
posted to xemacs-patches.)
Where should I push? Shall I use the old repo, the new repo on
bitbucket.org or shall I just wait?
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
it looks like I might have a window of opportunity start testing xemacs with
Python-mode and speech recognition. I apologize for my invisibility but life is
unpleasantly full at times. Since it appears I am suffering from Thunderbird
induced mailbox Alzheimer's, I can't find the instructions from last time I
asked this question.
What do I need to do to build a current version from the repository
Do you still want to try and run the automatic build process on Windows 7 cygwin
--- eric
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
Anders J. Munch writes:
> Den 11-08-05 05.03, Stephen J. Turnbull skrev:
> There's a --with-mule option, no --without-mule.
--without-FEATURE is equivalent to --with-FEATURE=no.
> If Mule is the safer choice, and the future direction of XEmacs,
> shouldn't it be the default?
It's not the safer choice yet. There are known performance problems,
and several aspects where Mule is not fully implemented (eg, in tab
controls with Xft).
Because it is the future direction, we'll probably experiment with it
in the beta series in the near future, but I expect this to cause some
pain to some testers. The question is whether we should fix the known
problems before doing that, or Just Do It and let the users scream at
us until we do fix the problems.<wink>
> > And it's really the wrong question. Why would anybody be willing to
> > maintain XEmacs without a package distribution?
>
> Because there's no maintaining. When upgrading,
By "maintain", I mean "fix, improve, and release". No maintenance, no
improvements of any kind, let alone in distribution. :-)
> they replace the packages with the latest sumo.
>
> If using the package manager is the better approach, that doesn't come across
> from reading
> http://xemacs.org/Documentation/packageGuide.html#How_to_install_the_pack...
Why should it? The point is not that installing the packages via the
package manager is better than downloading a single tarball, it's that
creating a single tarball is costly to the developers, and has some
downsides for the users as well. Consider:
XEmacs N is released with SUMO M. User installs.
XEmacs N+1 is released with SUMO M. XEmacs N is not broken, user ignores.
SUMO M+1 is released. User's favorite package is upgraded, user installs.
User tries package X, likes it, but some features require XEmacs N+1,
XEmacs N is now broken for this user.
User installs XEmacs N+1, downgrading all packages to SUMO M. Oops.
> Maybe not. So long as there is an unambiguous procedure for
> installing XEmacs, all of XEmacs.
Unfortunately, there cannot be any such thing. Not until there is
Linux World Domination and One True Distro to Rule Them All.
We can and should fix the documentation to make an unambiguous
*suggestion* of
1. Download xemacs-$version.tar.gz. Unpack in /usr/local/src. Then do:
./configure {options except install directories}; make; make install
2. Download xemacs-sumo.tar.gz.
Unpack in /usr/local/share/xemacs/xemacs-packages.
3. Optionally download xemacs-mule-sumo.tar.gz
Unpack in /usr/local/share/xemacs/mule-packages.
This is near the top of my list (I'm presently trying to wrap my head
around documenting and fixing bugs in the syntax code).
2 and 3 could be automated, but it will require checks on sanity of
install directory options *and* for the presence and version of
existing packages (including traditional but FHS-violating locations)
or we really haven't improved things -- more convenient for first-time
users, yes, but confusing and potentially data-destroying (what if a
user has edited packages in the XEmacs system tree? M-x find-library
makes that easy to do!) for existing users who upgrade. This will be
non-trivial given the plethora of standard GNU options for
installation directories, the existence of a few XEmacs-specific
options like --with-prefix=no, and the fact that load-path is computed
at runtime rather than baked into constants determined by the
configure script.
I would be happy to review patchs to configure.ac and Makefile.in.in
to implement this, but be aware I will veto anything without most of
the checks mentioned above. This makefile stanza:
standard-install-packages:
cd /tmp
wget http://ftp.xemacs.org/pub/xemacs/xemacs-sumo.tar.gz
wget http://ftp.xemacs.org/pub/xemacs/xemacs-mule-sumo.tar.gz
cd /usr/local/share/xemacs/xemacs-packages
tar xzf /tmp/xemacs-sumo.tar.gz
cd ../mule-packages
tar xzf /tmp/xemacs-mule-sumo.tar.gz
has no hope of getting approved as-is.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
here's another one of those problems integrating NaturallySpeaking with Emacs.
Dictation box is a tool that uses the cut and paste buffer to transfer
information between application and a dedicated editor. There are multiple
options for sending the cut and paste commands.
Copy options are:
do not copy
type keys ctrl+c
use window copy command
paste options:
type keys ctrl+v
use Windows paste commands
simulate keystrokes
Now, I really like my ctrl+c, ctrl+v keys to remain as they are (I'm too old to
rewire my meat macros). I'm trying to do the research to find out what the copy
and paste commands are for windows and whether or not we can use it to invoke a
different mechanism for transferring text into and out of xemacs and bypass
requirement for the keystrokes c-c c-v If anybody here knows, I would appreciate
enlightenment.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta