Juanma Barranquero wrote:
On 12/8/06, Lennart Borgman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, I should be responsible for EmacsW32 I guess.
Yes, I think so. And this report is exactly the kind of thing some
people in the list were talking about: we're receiving a bug report
for a problem that it is perhaps non-existent in the official builds.
On the other hand we might be receiving bug reports just because there
are more users if we supply a prebuildt binary on MS Windows. It might
be more important.
The unpatched version should really be the just the standard
distribution (from CVS) compiled + optionally the EmacsW32 files but
those should not be involved here at all.
As long as it is not the standard tarball or straight from the CVS, I
would count it as unofficial. Differences can creep in.
It would be very nice if there were un official prebuilt binary package
for MS Windows. Of course mistakes could happen there too, but I think
they will be sorted out rather quickly.
In the case of the EmacsW32 distros I actually think the same though
they do not have any official status of course.
_______________________________________________
emacs-pretest-bug mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
