[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: XEmacs and LDAP



On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 01:06:14PM -0800, Dave Baker wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:40:50AM +0000, Edouard Lafargue wrote:
> > > 
> > >   I noticed that xemacs (xemacs-21-gtk in my case) seems to have
> > > trouble with LDAP and eudc: is it because the version included in
> > > unstable was compiled without support for LDAP ? Wouldn't it be a good
> > > thing to include it ? Getting LDAP completion when I send emails would
> > > be neat.
> 
> 
> It would be nice to have, but is it good to have a library dependency for
> all other users of emacs who doesn't want or need LDAP?  
> 
> I find it concerning that many variants of many packages are
> cluttering up th packages list.  With that in mind I have to consider it
> more prudent to:
> 
> 1) keep the package as 'slim' as possible (i.e. no LDAP dependency)
> and
> 2)  put a ccouple of comments in the appropriate debian/* files to let
> 	people apt-get source them and rebuild with the extra options they
> 	want/need more easily.
> 
> 
> Dave
> 
> p.s. I'd like to have it myself, but I'd rather recompile the package
> myself than lumber everyone else with LDAP just because they want to use
> emacs.  

That sounds reasonably. Anyone that do recompile this could
try to run it without the ldap library installed. If it works
I'll try to use suggests: ... for theese libraries. I do not have
the time right now but maybe in a week or three. :)

If it works, I'll add the suggests line and recompile (I think I
can fix that much time).

// Ola

-- 
 --------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/  opal@debian.org                     Björnkärrsgatan 5 A.11   \
|  opal@lysator.liu.se                 584 36 LINKÖPING         |
|  +46 (0)13-17 69 83                  +46 (0)70-332 1551       |
|  http://www.opal.dhs.org             UIN/icq: 4912500         |
\  gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36  4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
 ---------------------------------------------------------------



Reply to: