Mike> work, i.e. it seems that the portable dumper really doesn't Mike> care about comreloc. As far as I can see, XEmacs works fine Mike> with the portable dumper. Does the portable dumper have any Mike> disadvantages? 1. It currently requires "cruft" in the bin directory, namely the dump file itself. Many people dislike this, but finding a "safe" place to put it in the executable requires unexec-like knowledge of executable structure. 2. unexec is simply the image of memory as loaded by the system. Therefore it neither knows nor cares about Lisp data structures. The portable dumper does need such knowledge, and we haven't yet managed to automate that yet. While I do not expect more bugs from this, we have seen a few bugs that result from parts of XEmacs not being properly pdump-ized, and I can't exclude the possibility. Mike> Is it recommended to build binary packages of XEmacs with Mike> the portable dumper? Not if unexec has a history of working solidly. Experience with the portable dumper is much shorter and includes recent bugs. Not to mention that the main pdump developers (Olivier and Martin) are currently busy with work and play respectively. I see no reason for people who build their own frequently not to use the pdumper; risks are low. But for people who use a binary package and hope to leave it in place for a year or so, I don't think it's worth suing pdump just to satisfy "political correctness." -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Don't ask how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.