Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 17:24:19 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, darrylo@hpnmhjw.sr.hp.com, questions@freefall.freebsd.org, me@freebsd.org Subject: Re: questions-digest V1 #1174 Message-ID: <199607312324.RAA04427@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199607312320.QAA21952@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> References: <199607312216.QAA04264@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199607312320.QAA21952@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> * Yes, we want it. I'd rather have XEmacs than not, and requiring a > * $100+ package to use it when it's not necessary seems a shame. > > No, the other alternative is to use the non-Motif toolkit for xemacs, > at least for building packages. Under no circumstances will we want > to ship a package with Motif dynamically linked. Agreed, but that is the current state of the xemacs package unfortunately. :( > * When you add in the lisp files, adding a couple hundred K more isn't > * going to make *THAT* big of a difference. > > I surely would prefer a smaller binary, provided the functionality is > abouth the same. :) Michael, do you know how the Motif and non-Motif > versions are different? The 'Motif' version looks better. But, functionally they are the same. What's the size difference in the binary of a 'static Motif' binary vs. a 'non-Motif' binary? (Unfortunately, I don't have Motif or I'd do the comparison myself, or at least build a local package that uses Motif. :( Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607312324.RAA04427>