Re: The future of XEmacs
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Mike Kupfer writes:
> Oh, and there's a lot more noise at startup about package shadows.
Noise about shadows is a user issue. There shouldn't be any shadows
in a normal user's configuration. Only developers should have shadows
(and maybe the occasional shadow due to mission critical packages
where user follows upstream).
I'm not convinced of that. It's reasonable for a user's computer to
have the latest sumo installed--I believe that's how most of the distros
provide XEmacs. But ISTR that promotion of packages to stable does not
always imply the release of a new sumo. (Or maybe the user is running a
"stable" OS release that has an old sumo.) And adventurous users could
be running pre-release packages. So it's pretty easy to end up with
shadows: one copy from the sumo, typically in /usr somewhere, and
another copy installed by PUI under $HOME/.xemacs. That's how I get
most of my shadows. (I currently get warnings about 17 shadows. 14
were downloaded from xemacs.org, 3 were ones that I built.)
FWIW, the additional noise in 21.5 is from the addition of a Lisp stack
trace for each shadow warning. Is that an explicit change, or is that
just a result of running with additional debugging flags set (because
21.5 is a beta)? The stack doesn't seem to add much value in this
situation (IMHO).
mike
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta