Re: Problems in the making of non mule ps-print!?

|--==> "ML" == Mats Lidell <matsl(a)contactor.se&gt; writes: ML> Hi, ML> This is not a serious patch, thus not posted to patches, but is to set ML> focus on a problem, and probably not a serious one ;-), in the making ML> of ps-print. Just checked the other packages... ps-print is the only one with this problem. Phew! No huge sweeping patches. :-) ML> The mule sources are ifeq'ed but before the inclusion of ML> XEmacs.rules. Thus all el-files are included when building ps-print ML> without mule. (As it happens this seems to be OK. The files are ML> compiled.) ML> On the other hand when XEmacs.rules is included before the ifeq, so ML> that the files are left out in a none mule build, I found out that ML> ps-mule is actually needed by ps-print. [...] ML> -ELCS = lpr.elc ps-print.elc ML> +ELCS = lpr.elc ps-print.elc ps-mule.elc ML> -ifeq ($(BUILD_WITHOUT_MULE),) ML> -ELCS += ps-mule.elc ps-bdf.elc ML> -endif [...] ML> + ML> +include ../../XEmacs.rules ML> + ML> +ifeq ($(BUILD_WITHOUT_MULE),) ML> +ELCS += ps-bdf.elc ML> +endif Just wondering, how much trouble would we get into if we were to not try to make any distinction between Mule and non-Mule? In other words, include both ps-mule.el and ps-bdf.el in non-Mule builds. Could somebody with a bit of Mule savvy have a look at that for me and let me know if it would be OK. Steve T? Mats, thanks for bringing this up. -- |---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: 10D5C9C5>---| | XEmacs - It's not just an editor. | | It's a way of life. | |------------------------------------&lt;youngs(a)xemacs.org&gt;---|