On Thursday 08 March 2007 02:31pm, Chip Coldwell wrote: > On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Jesse Keating wrote: > > Or the even more preferable packaging of emacs that allows the x/gtk > > functionality to be split into a subpackage and callable with an option. > > I really don't understand the difference between two packages > > emacs: with GTK+, etc. > emacs-nox: without GTK+, etc. > > and two packages: > > emacs-gnome: with GTK+, etc. > emacs: without GTK+, etc. > > Aside from the renaming, how is this different from the present > situation? What Jesse is saying is that emacs should be built so that the emacs-gnome (or whatever it ends up being called) package is an *add on* to the base emacs package. Like a plug-in or a wrapper that adds the X windowed version. Currently, the emacs app is completely rebuilt twice, once for each version and installing both actually gives lots of duplicated bits. Personally, I agree that this would be the best approach, but I'm afraid I have no clue as to how much work that may (or may not) require to be able to compile in that manner. -- Lamont Peterson <lamont@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Senior Instructor Guru Labs, L.C. [ http://www.GuruLabs.com/ ] NOTE: All messages from this email address should be digitally signed with my 0xDC0DD409 GPG key. It is available on the pgp.mit.edu keyserver as well as other keyservers that sync with MIT's.
Attachment:
pgptUKy22hhun.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
