"Richard M. Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If we do that, we might as well delete lazy-lock.el and fast-lock.el > rather than leave them in obsolete. > > We don't normally delete packages that are obsolete, we normally put > them in the `obsolete' directory. Is there a reason to treat these > differently? > > We could delete all the obsolete files, I guess. Would that be > better? I tend to think that having them available as examples > could be useful for someone--and it does no harm. > > To make SURE it does no harm, I will turn off compilation and other > such processing of the `obsolete' subdir.
How can compiling the functions in obsolete do any harm? Do you also plan to remove obsolete from load-path? -- Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.cua.dk _______________________________________________ Emacs-pretest-bug mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
