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

Re: Bug#61167: emacsen-common: major bug in policy (not RC for potato)

>>>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:33:39 -0400, Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk> said:

 Julian> On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 11:11:34AM -0500, Rob Browning wrote:
 >> Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk> writes:
 >> > Here's another suggestion.  Why not leave the existing emacsen
 >> > packages as they are and apply the rule only to new versions of
 >> > emacs (so emacs21 and xemacs22 onwards)?  That will save the
 >> > hassle, I guess.
 >> Thanks for the suggestion.  That sounded like the right thing to
 >> me.  Accordingly, after consulting with dres, I've modified
 >> debian-emacs-policy to fix the problem.  However, the emacs20
 >> packages may never be fixed, but the emacs21 packages will be
 >> fixed upon first release.

 Julian> s/may never/will never/.

 Julian> Sounds goods otherwise!

 >> Here's the relevant text from the upcoming emacsen-common policy.
 >> /usr/share/<flavor>/site-lisp should be used instead of the normal
 >> site-lisp directory for that flavor of emacs.  In addition, the
 >> package for a given flavor of emacs should not have the normal
 >> site-lisp directory.  For example, instead of the emacs20 package
 >> having /usr/share/emacs/20.7/site-lisp, it should only have
 >> /usr/share/emacs20/site-lisp.  This is important because it allows
 >> us to avoid having dangling directories for old versions across
 >> upgrades.  We could have chosen to keep a compatibility symlink,
 >> but that seemed likely to mask bugs in the debianized packages.

 Julian> But if it's only for emacs21 onwards, let's give an
 Julian> appropriate example, and a footnote that this only applies
 Julian> from emacs21/xemacs22 onwards.

This already basically applies to xemacs21.  Only one package I have
installed (a2ps) is putting stuff anywhere else.


@James LewisMoss <dres@debian.org>      |  Blessed Be!
@    http://jimdres.home.mindspring.com |  Linux is kewl!
@"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach

Reply to: