Jerry,
I'm using Slackware64 14.0.
Is your Fedora version 64 bit?
Which version?
Steve Mitchell
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
Wow, xaw-xpm .... you are really bringing back the 90's memories! Now I have the urge to go listen to some Beck or Massive Attack or something ...
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2012-12-04 - 2012-12-11)
XEmacs Issue Tracking System at http://tracker.xemacs.org/XEmacs/its/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue
number. Do NOT respond to this message.
556 open ( +0) / 290 closed ( +0) / 846 total ( +0)
Open issues with patches: 13
Average duration of open issues: 1302 days.
Median duration of open issues: 1383 days.
Open Issues Breakdown
new 229 ( +0)
deferred 6 ( +0)
napping 3 ( +0)
verified 56 ( +0)
assigned 153 ( +0)
committed 19 ( +0)
documented 3 ( +0)
done/needs work 18 ( +0)
Issues Now Closed (1)
_____________________
Filter out non-dev users 1797 days
http://tracker.xemacs.org/XEmacs/its/issue5 dani70ce
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
Hello
The customize problem still bothers me, so I thought of
recompiling xemacs with different options.
I started with ./configure
and added no option (so this is without mule support)
and the compilation failed. I attach the bug trace.
However ./configure --with-mule
results in a working xemacs and customize *works*, I will
play with the configuration options and report back
Uwe Brauer
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
>>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> I don't have time to investigate right now (I don't quite have an
> up-to-date build), hopefully Aidan does. But I think this is our
> bug, not yours.
I can't reproduce. Version 1.57 of cc-mode plus tip version of
21.5. Editing a C-file cause no problems!? Maybe I have misunderstood
the error situation.
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
Trying to edit a .c file with cc-mode 1.57 results in errors:
Invalid argument: Invalid (GNU Emacs) key format (see doc of define-key), c-electric-backspace
Invalid argument: Invalid (GNU Emacs) key format (see doc of define-key), c-electric-brace
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:24:50 +0100, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
> Tassilo Horn <tsdh(a)gnu.org> writes:
[snip]
> Now XEmacs will only distribute package files that have been assembled
> by XEmacs tools in the XEmacs package tree.
This is correct. I wish it were different, that there
existed a debian-like-alien tool which allowed to convert
one package into another one, like deb-->rpm
> So the XEmacs packages that AUCTeX provides will work
> fine, but you'll have to find, download and install
> them manually instead of relying on the XEmacs
> packaging system.
You can unpack it in ~/.xemacs/packages
or in
prefix/xemacs/site-packages
> What will be provided in the XEmacs package
> repositories consequently is something massaged
> manually to the necessary layout, commonly with
> mistakes and several years behind.
Well if their package manager were faster it should be a
question of days not years :'(
[snip]
> The XEmacs compatibility code in the Lisp files itself is peanuts in
> comparison. No point in removing that as far as I can see. However,
> preview-latex has a somewhat more extensive compatibility setup. It
> would be arguable not to place the prv-xemacs.el files in the ELPA
> packaging at least.
That is your call to make.
> Removing it from the source distribution would be
> seriously unfair since it is technically complex enough that starting it
> from scratch would be quite hard: that would be several man-months at
> least from an experienced XEmacs programmer, and there are none as far
> as I can see interested in AUCTeX.
Yes, please, do *not* remove it, that would be real nightmare
for Xemacs users.
Uwe Brauer
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Pletzer, Randy <randy.pletzer(a)lmco.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your prompt reply. Because I work for a large corporation, the
> corporate IT has a list of approved applications for Windows workstations,
> and although PC Emacs is approved, PC Xemacs is not, and getting
> non-standard software approved and installed is harder than getting Congress
> to agree on a Fiscal Cliff solution. So, unfortunately, this solution is not
> open to me.
Completely understood. I sometimes have similar difficulties.
My condolences.
- Vin
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta