November 2015 - XEmacs-Beta - XEmacs Mailing List Archives

GPLv3|L8R -- Status report - ready for inspection? 7 years, 5 months

Mats Lidell

Hi, Here comes yet another status report from the project of converting to GPLv3 or later. There are two lists of files below. The first list contains all files that are in an undecided state. Please inspect: Do we need to do anything with them. If so what? The second list contains all files that we can leave untouched and the reason for that. Please inspect: Are all reasons OK and correct? Are we getting close to the were an inspection of the xemacs-gplv3 repository could be performed? With the intent that it that is OK we could merge back to trunk and go GPLv3 or later? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "CHANGES-beta" "ChangeLog" "PROBLEMS" "README" "README.GPLv3" "etc/ChangeLog" "etc/Emacs.ad" "etc/InstallGuide" "etc/NEWS" "etc/ONEWS" "etc/OONEWS" "etc/README" "etc/editclient.sh" "etc/emacskeys.sco" "etc/emacsstrs.sco" "etc/gtkrc" "etc/package-index.LATEST.gpg" "etc/sample.Xresources" "etc/xemacs.1" "lib-src/ChangeLog" "lib-src/README" "lisp/ChangeLog" "lisp/README" "lisp/mule/mule-locale.txt" "man/ChangeLog" "man/README" "modules/ChangeLog" "modules/base64/Makefile" "modules/common/configure-post.ac" "modules/common/configure-pre.ac" "modules/zlib/Makefile" "nt/ChangeLog" "nt/Emacs.ad.h" "nt/Installation.el" "nt/README" "nt/Win32.cf" "nt/lisp.ico" "nt/site.def" "nt/xemacs.dsp" "nt/xemacs.dsw" "src/ChangeLog" "src/README" "src/README.kkcc" "src/m/README" "src/s/README" "src/s/freebsd.h" "src/s/irix6-0.h" "src/s/netbsd.h" "src/s/sol2.h" "tests/ChangeLog" "tests/Dnd/README" "tests/automated/README" "version.sh.in" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- These files below are the files that we might be able to leave as they are. The reason for why they need not to be changed is listed after each file: (Some reasons are taken verbatim from private communication or the "GPL version 3 source survey") ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "INSTALL" -> old FSF Documentation license "config.guess" -> Part of config which is still GPLv2 or later. See "http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/config" "config.sub" -> Part of config which is still GPLv2 or later. See "http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/config" "etc/ETAGS.ChangeLog" -> BSD and GPL v2 or later "etc/VEGETABLES" -> Not copyrightable. "etc/XKeysymDB" -> MIT "etc/ctags.1" -> Part of the etags distribution, which is not part of XEmacs. "etc/custom/example-themes/ex-custom-file" -> Generated(!?) or GPL V2 or later? "etc/etags.1" -> Part of the etags distribution, which is not part of XEmacs. "etc/gnuattach.1" -> simple man link to gnuserv.1 "etc/gnuclient.1" -> simple man link to gnuserv.1 "etc/gnudoit.1" -> simple man link to gnuserv.1 "etc/refcard.ps.gz" -> Generated from refcard..tex "etc/sample.Xdefaults" -> It is deprecated, so it can be removed but is only a three line reference to .Xresources "etc/xemacs-X.ico" -> GPLv2 or later but there is not meta data for the file where this can be documented. "info/dir" -> Generated(?) "install-sh" -> MIT-style "no advertising" license "lib-src/b2m.c" -> This is the version from GNU Emacs, so should be OK. "lib-src/config.values.in" -> Generated. "lib-src/emacs.csh" -> I don't think this even works with XEmacs ("emacsclient"), so I believe we can just delete it. "lib-src/insert-data-in-exec.c" -> Compatible license. "lib-src/mmencode.c" -> Compatible license. "lisp/dump-paths.el" -> Empty file. Not copyrightable. "lisp/term/bobcat.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration "lisp/term/vt102.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration "lisp/term/vt125.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration "lisp/term/vt200.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration "lisp/term/vt201.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration "lisp/term/vt220.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration "lisp/term/vt240.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration "lisp/term/vt300.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration "lisp/term/vt320.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration "lisp/term/vt400.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration "lisp/term/vt420.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration "lock/.precious" -> Not copyrightable. "modules/canna/install-sh" -> MIT "modules/ldap/install-sh" -> MIT "modules/postgresql/install-sh" -> MIT "modules/sample/external/install-sh" -> MIT "modules/sample/internal/install-sh" -> MIT "move-if-change" -> Identical to GPLv3 or later Emacs version "nt/Xmd.patch" -> GPLv2 or later but only a few lines "nt/file.ico" -> MIT "nt/minitar.c" -> Public domain "nt/paths.h" -> Generated "nt/xemacs.ico" -> GPLv2 or later but there is not meta data for the file where this can be documented. "src/alloca.c" -> Public domain. "src/depend" -> Generated "src/emacs-marshals.c" -> Generated. "src/emacs-widget-accessors.c" -> Generated. "src/intl-auto-encap-win32.c" -> Generated. "src/intl-auto-encap-win32.h" -> Generated. "src/libsst.c" -> Compatible license. "src/libsst.h" -> Compatible license. "src/libst.h" -> Compatible copyright. "src/linuxplay.c" -> Compatible license. (MIT-like) "src/miscplay.c" -> Compatible license. (MIT-like) "src/miscplay.h" -> Compatible license. (MIT-like) "src/nas.c" -> Compatible license. (MIT-like) "src/paths.h.in" -> Generated. "src/s/openbsd.h" -> Too short. (< 10 lines) "src/s/usg5-4-2.h" -> Too short. (< 10 lines) "src/sunplay.c" -> Compatible copyright. "tests/gtk/UNIMPLEMENTED" -> Does notes need a license? "tests/tooltalk/beeps.el" -> Too short. (< 10 lines) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Yours -- %% Mats _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta

4 participants
3 comments

Re: Pkgs built with 21.5 can't be used in 21.4 (or SXEmacs) 8 years, 12 months

Stephen J. Turnbull

Steve Youngs writes: > Well, here's the thing, the reason this issue came to my notice was > because some of the packages currently in "Pre-release" were built by > Norbert on 21.5. Aha! I suppose there is reason for that, but again, we'll have to think about all this. BTW, are you following xemacs-review? If not, you probably should take a look. Steve _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta

2 participants
1 comments

auctex 11.89 8 years, 12 months

Uwe Brauer

Hi A couple of days auctex vs 11.89 was released. I made an official package for 11.88, namely auctex-1.56-pkg.tar.gz which is still in pre-release although I asked several time to move it to the official branch. Can somebody please tell me whether it makes any sense to continue to try to upgrade that package? Thanks Uwe Brauer _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta

1 participants
0 comments

Pkgs built with 21.5 can't be used in 21.4 (or SXEmacs) 8 years, 12 months

Steve Youngs

Hey Peeps! First up, I wish to apologise for not jumping on this when it first happened (I think the changes that are the root cause happened quite a while ago). OK, so here's the problem... elisp that has been byte-compiled with XEmacs 21.5 cannot be loaded with XEmacs 21.4, or SXEmacs. Why? Because... XEmacs 21.5: (special-form-p 'throw) => t XEmacs 21.4: (special-form-p 'throw) => nil SXEmacs: (special-form-p 'throw) => nil It would seem that somebody thought it was a good idea to make Fthrow() take "possibly unevalled" arguments. I don't understand the reasoning behind that and I'd certainly love to know. However, that by itself, isn't the whole reason. XEmacs 21.5 has a #'byte-compile-throw in bytecomp.el (which 21.4 and SXEmacs don't have) that injects a test into the top of ELCs... (or (and (featurep 'xemacs) (null (function-max-args 'throw))) (error "Loading this file requires xemacs, (null (function-max-args 'throw))")) That test fails for 21.4 and SXEmacs because our Fthrow() doesn't use UNEVALLED args. May I ask, what is the thinking behind this test? If it is to ensure that only certain versions of (S)XEmacs can load the lib wouldn't it be far easier (and give finer control) to inject something like this... (or (and (featurep 'xemacs) (emacs-version>= 21 5 35)) (error "Loading this file requires XEmacs >= 21.5.35")) It just seems really odd (and annoying for me) that XEmacs would rely on the definition of a function as a means of restricting where a elisp can be loaded. Explain it to me guys so that I can decide what, if anything, SXEmacs needs to do. For further reading see: http://issues.sxemacs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171 though I don't think that there's anything there that I haven't covered here. Thanks! -- |---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---| | SXEmacs - The only _______ you'll ever need. | | Fill in the blank, yes, it's THAT good! | |------------------------------------<steve(a)sxemacs.org>---| _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta

1 participants
0 comments

Summary of XEmacs Issue Tracking System Issues 9 years

XEmacs Issue Tracking System

ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2015-11-17 - 2015-11-24) 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. 573 open ( +0) / 319 closed ( +0) / 892 total ( +0) Open issues with patches: 13 Average duration of open issues: 2250 days. Median duration of open issues: 2447 days. Open Issues Breakdown new 265 ( +0) deferred 6 ( +0) napping 3 ( +0) verified 58 ( +0) assigned 145 ( +0) committed 19 ( +0) documented 3 ( +0) done/needs work 15 ( +0) _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta

1 participants
0 comments

Summary of XEmacs Issue Tracking System Issues 9 years

XEmacs Issue Tracking System

ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2015-11-10 - 2015-11-17) 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. 573 open ( +0) / 319 closed ( +0) / 892 total ( +0) Open issues with patches: 13 Average duration of open issues: 2243 days. Median duration of open issues: 2440 days. Open Issues Breakdown new 265 ( +0) deferred 6 ( +0) napping 3 ( +0) verified 58 ( +0) assigned 145 ( +0) committed 19 ( +0) documented 3 ( +0) done/needs work 15 ( +0) _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Fedora 22, Emacs Shell Warning: no access to tty (Inappropriate ioctl for device). 9 years

Stephen J. Turnbull

B. Joshua Rosen writes: > Do you have access to a system that's using the using a leading edge > distro, either Fedora or Ubuntu? Not conveniently, I haven't used RH-based systems in anger in almost 20 years, and I've never used Ubuntu. To be honest, I am primarily interested in seeing if the problem can be reproduced on other systems. But if I can help with debugging based on others' reports I will do that. Steve _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta

1 participants
0 comments

XEmacs nox11 startup issue 9 years

Hauke Fath

All, on a machine without X11 installation, I have upgraded XEmacs to 21.4.23 and the packages. Now, xemacs (compiled without X11 support) gives me a Symbol's value as variable is void: default-menubar unless started with either -vanilla or -no-init-file. OTOH, -no-site-file doesn't help, and -debug-init comes up empty. The constant 'default-menubar' shows up only in a few places % find ./xemacs* -name "*.el" -exec fgrep -l 'default-menubar' \{\} \; ./xemacs/xemacs-packages/lisp/Sun/sunpro-menubar.el ./xemacs/xemacs-packages/lisp/ediff/ediff-wind.el ./xemacs/xemacs-packages/lisp/guided-tour/guided-tour.el ./xemacs/xemacs-packages/lisp/ispell/ispell.el ./xemacs/xemacs-packages/lisp/w3/w3-menu.el ./xemacs-21.4.23/lisp/menubar-items.el ./xemacs-21.4.23/lisp/menubar.el % Where do I look next? Cheerio, Hauke -- The ASCII Ribbon Campaign Hauke Fath () No HTML/RTF in email Institut für Nachrichtentechnik /\ No Word docs in email TU Darmstadt Respect for open standards Ruf +49-6151-16-3281 _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta

5 participants
13 comments

Re: Fedora 22, Emacs Shell Warning: no access to tty (Inappropriate ioctl for device). 9 years

Stephen J. Turnbull

B. Joshua Rosen writes: > I do have a bug filed for TCSH on Fedora but they haven't done anything > about it yet. It's been months. I'll try it on Mac OS and Debian this weekend, I have other XEmacs work I'll be doing then. I suspect we'll find that it's either Fedora-specific (including patches to XEmacs, tcsh, or libraries used by the above) or version-specific to tcsh in the end. > On 11/10/2015 06:15 PM, Mats Lidell wrote: > > I'm afraid the silence probably indicates that nobody has done > > that. I tried to recreate it on my Gentoo-box to check if it is > > something generic with tcsh _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Fedora 22, Emacs Shell Warning: no access to tty (Inappropriate ioctl for device). 9 years

Stephen J. Turnbull

B. Joshua Rosen writes: > I want to add one more thing. Regular Emacs doesn''t exhibitthis > problem, tcsh shells work fine in Emacs. Thanks, that helps a lot -- as I say, the code is quite similar so that any difference there may be the cause. _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta

3 participants
3 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 November 2015