Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 19:05:34 -0700 (PDT) From: asami@freebsd.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) To: me@freebsd.org Cc: garyj@fkr.dec.com, ports@freebsd.org, ports-jp@jp.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/editors/xemacs-packages - Imported sources Message-ID: <199906250205.TAA83100@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: <19990624135208.C1980@consol.de> (message from Michael Elbel on Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:52:10 %2B0200) References: <19990624135208.C1980@consol.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* From: Michael Elbel <Michael.Elbel@consol.de> * Hmm, we'd need to have a mule enabled xemacs21 package as well then. You * can't use the mule packages without compiling xemacs mule enabled. Oh. * After the creation of separate xemacs-mule ports by Kazuyuki IENAGA I've * been wondering if I shouldn't drop mule support in the port * altogether. I've kept it so far because it really isn't a lot of work to * support it. I'd really like to know if *anybody* is using the stock xemacs * port with mule. * * All in all, I'd say it isn't worth the hassle to have *two* mule-enabled * pre-built packages. You are quite right. Actually I was wondering if you two can work to merge the two ports together. Is it hard to make it so that xemacs21/Makefile is capable of building both un-mule and fully mule-enabled versions (defaulting to the former) and xemacs21-mule/Makefile will just include it with USE_MULE defined? * That's just my opinion, of course. I'll leave the final decision to the * ports master. * * Michael Please don't invoke me to make decisions on ports I don't even use (sorry Ienaga-san, but emacs20 is quite good enough for me ;). -PW To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906250205.TAA83100>