proposal for GNU emacs 21.2 package

[Nicholas Wourms]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

>On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 05:17:30PM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>
>>Sorry, I had intended this to go to the list but must of screwed up.   
>>And I guess I owe you another apology because I fogot that $#%@ X11 
>>doesn't make both kinds of libraries for every dll.  So I guess I stand 
>>corrected.  *Sigh*, I do wish the XFree people would drop the antiquated 
>>Imake system and switch to autotools.
>>
>
>That's a big ditto.  I've always hated that imake stuff.
>
>Btw, I probably should note that I'm very happy to have this in the
>distribution.  I know it was a lot of work for Joe.  I hope we can work
>out all of these issues with dlls.  It's a pain but I want to do it as
>close to "right" as possible.
>
Well,

I'm not the one who wants it, but I think we might as well distribute 
the lastest rebase as a package.  I know its supposed to be part of 
setup.exe, but with Rob being indefinately tied up, I think this is the 
most prudent step at this point.  Then Stipe and Joe can depend on the 
rebase package and use it during postinstall.  Not the best solution, 
mind you, but one that seems to be the most appropriate.  I mean, after 
all, if someone complains about memory collisions on the main list we 
tell them to go get rebase anyhow.  This will just save us the trouble 
of having to do that step.  I suggest that it be done until we can get a 
mainstream setup with the integrated functionality.  In the meantime, I 
guess us WinME users will just have to go without Apache and Emacs until 
fork() gets fixed or until we stop using fork alltogether.  This will 
also get rid of that antiquated rebase that Stipe is distributing in his 
package, which solves another problem.

So Jason, if you put up a package for rebase, its got my vote.

Cheers,
Nicholas