Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> writes:
> On 2012/06/11 10:22, Manuel Giraud wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here's a port of the new version of emacs. Currently testing on
>> i386.
>
> A couple of things I noticed reading the port,
>
> - missing desktop/icon-cache dependencies and @exec/unexec lines
What is this? I've done a make lib-depends-check and it seems happy.
> - mandoc isn't expected to handle gzipped manpages; /etc/man.conf does have
> settings to handle compressed manpages which work OK, but in general we don't
> use gzipped manpages in OpenBSD.
So you mean that this port's manpages should stay gzipped or is it ok to
gunzip them? By the way, I think it ought to be "gunzip
{realnames}.1.gz" instead of "gunzip *.1.gz", no?
> - minor but we don't generally start a new version with anything in
> REVISION-xx
Ok.
> - is there anything to indicate that the amd64/mips64 "gzip tsang-b5.el" parts
> are no longer needed?
It seems that all .el files are gzipped upon installation so I've just
removed this part.
>> FWIW, I'm all for killing the emacs 23 port in the process.
>
> Is there a reason to have more than "a current version" and 21.x anyway?
> i.e. would it make sense to just have editors/emacs21 and
> editors/emacs?
I follow you on this. The point to have emacs23 not replacing emacs22 is
that it seems to be a PITA to upgrade .emacs file from 22 to 23. I don't
know if the point still stands from 23 to 24 (in fact, it worked
gracefully for me).
--
Manuel Giraud
