Re: New from emacs-snapshot
Jérôme Marant <jmarant@free.fr> writes:
> Quoting Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se>:
>
>>> That's right. I'll see if I can change that.
>>
>> What's wrong with the way you are currently doing it?
>
> Nothing, I think. Weren't you suggesting making changes in emacs21?
Not directly, although I guess I did imply that it had some
superfluous lines in its rules file.
I thought you meant you were going to see if you could change the
emacs-snapshot rules file to match that of emacs21.
>>>>> I think we could avoid patching Makefile.in
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> What do you think? (I haven't tested)
>>>>
>>>> Ah, yes, that looks great. I didn't realize that locallisppath is
>>>> only used in that one place in Makefile.in.
>>>>
>>>> I will try building with this change.
>>>
>>> Good. Thanks.
>>
>> I've built it, and it works perfectly!
>
> Very nice! Thanks for testing!
>
> I'll try to commit your changes today, along with my work on
> splitting misc-unseparated.dpatch.
Great, thanks!
>>> BTW, I have a patch for configure.in which eliminates the need for
>>> calling epaths-force after running configure. I'll submit it
>>> to emacs-devel ASAP.
>>
>> That sounds great. Does it add a --locallisppath parameter?
>
> Yes. --enable-locallisppath even.
I see, nice.
--
Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se>
Reply to: