Your message dated Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:31:00 +0200 with message-id <20070330083100.GE19613@laboissiere.net> and subject line Bug#416048: octave2.9-emacsen: use update-alternatives for octave-inf and co has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
- To: "Pascal A. Dupuis" <Pascal.Dupuis@worldonline.be>, 416048@bugs.debian.org
- Cc: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: octave2.9-emacsen: use update-alternatives for octave-inf and co
- From: Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 20:48:09 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20070327184809.GD22007@laboissiere.net>
- In-reply-to: <20070324110525.22998.17117.reportbug@localhost.>
- References: <20070324110525.22998.17117.reportbug@localhost.>
Package: octave2.9-emacsen Severity: normal I am filing this bug report in the behalf of Pascal A. Dupuis, because the original bug report (#416048) concerned actually two unrelated bugs. The relevant part of the report is: * Pascal A. Dupuis <Pascal.Dupuis@worldonline.be> [2007-03-24 12:05]: > Package: octave2.9-emacsen > Severity: normal > Tags: patch > > [snip] > > May I also ask for the use of update-alternatives to use the right > versions of octave-inf and co ? There are indeed three sources: > emacs21-el_21.4a+1-3_all.deb > octave2.9-emacsen_2.9.9-8etch1_all.deb > octave2.1-emacsen -- Rafael
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Pascal.Dupuis@worldonline.be
- Cc: 416048-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#416048: octave2.9-emacsen: use update-alternatives for octave-inf and co
- From: Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:31:00 +0200
- Message-id: <20070330083100.GE19613@laboissiere.net>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20070329191041.GA4959@example.org>
- References: <20070324110525.22998.17117.reportbug@localhost.> <[🔎] 20070327184809.GD22007@laboissiere.net> <[🔎] 20070328162420.GT22007@laboissiere.net> <[🔎] 20070329191041.GA4959@example.org>
* Pascal A. Dupuis <depuis@worldonline.be> [2007-03-29 21:10]: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 06:24:20PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > [...] > > Second, the order of priority of the three packages providing Octave support > > for Emacsen is currently the following: > > > > 1) octave2.9-emacsen > > 2) octave2.1-emacsen > > 3) emacs21-el > > > > The octave2.*-emacsen packages contains the ultimate Emacs Lisp source files > > for the Octave support, meaning that they are preferable than the ones in > > emacs21-el. Also, the files in octave2.1-emacsen are not newer than the > > ones in octave2.9-emacsen. So, the priority order above is fortunate > > (although it was not designed to be so). > > > > I agree with you, but I have no idea about the order in which Emacs > considers its subdirs when scanning for its .elc files. So what if two > or three versions of octave-mod.elc are available ? Which one will be > used ? If you're sure that Emacs will consider the right one, I agree > that this bug report is void. The priority order is as I wrote above, which seems reasonable to me. I am hereby closing this bug report, because it is not clear where the problem is, let alone how to fix it. Feel free to reopen this bug report if you disagree but, please, only do it with further sound arguments. -- Rafael
--- End Message ---