From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: Re: `print' does not print Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:28:04 +0200 (IST) Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <3CA083A9.9FF5ED17@sgi.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1017153027 1044 127.0.0.1 (26 Mar 2002 14:30:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 14:30:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ralf@akutech.de, rms@gnu.org, bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16prxz-0000Gj-00 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:30:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16prxw-0003FA-00; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:30:24 -0500 Original-Received: from is.elta.co.il ([199.203.121.2]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16prwr-00039X-00; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:29:18 -0500 Original-Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA29123; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:28:04 +0200 (IST) X-Sender: eliz@is Original-To: David Kaelbling In-Reply-To: <3CA083A9.9FF5ED17@sgi.com> Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:197 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs:197 On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, David Kaelbling wrote: > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > It sounds like I have version 6.5.14m of the OS here. But if you tell me > > what to look for in the output of versions(1), I can give a more precise > > answer. > > Running "uname -R" will give you the micro-release number. Yes, it says 6.5.14m. So that's probably the reason I never saw such problems. > > Anyway, I don't know if this is a factor, but my libraries are all built > > from sources, and I linked them in statically. > > Hmm. I won't have time in the next two weeks, but I'll try building > with static libraries too. Not as nice, but if it works that'll do. It's not as nice, granted; but it makes my binary movable anywhere, so I don't need to depend on sysadmins' mercy... well, you know what I mean.