Is rst.el included in Emacs 23.1.1 or not?

Is rst.el included in Emacs 23.1.1 or not?

[Lennart Borgman]

Martin Soto says in the bug report below that rst.el is not included
in his Emacs 23.1.1 copy from Ubuntu Lucid Beta. His Emacs reports
this:

  GNU Emacs 23.1.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.20.0) of 2010-03-29 on
  rothera, modified by Debian

My copy of the downloaded Emacs 23.1.1 official binaries for w32 has rst.el.

Can someone please help us clarify what is wrong here?

The bug report is here if anyone want to ask Martin something:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/nxhtml/+bug/556832

Re: Is rst.el included in Emacs 23.1.1 or not?

[Tassilo Horn]

On Wednesday 07 April 2010 13:47:55 Lennart Borgman wrote:

Hi Lennart,

> Martin Soto says in the bug report below that rst.el is not included
> in his Emacs 23.1.1 copy from Ubuntu Lucid Beta. His Emacs reports
> this:
> 
>   GNU Emacs 23.1.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.20.0) of 2010-03-29 on
>   rothera, modified by Debian
> 
> My copy of the downloaded Emacs 23.1.1 official binaries for w32 has
> rst.el.

The official emacs-23.1.tar.bz2 includes rst.el and on my gentoo box it
is installed (and the ebuild basically just unpacks the tarball, run
configure, make and make install).

Maybe the ubuntu packagers stripped some files which can be installed
from other packages, docutils in that case?

Concerning Martin's "I'm pretty sure that the newer rst.el installed
separately is loaded" issue: he should check that using 

  M-x list-load-path-shadows

to be sure.

Bye,
Tassilo

Re: Is rst.el included in Emacs 23.1.1 or not?

[Lennart Borgman]

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Tassilo Horn <tassilo@member.fsf.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 April 2010 13:47:55 Lennart Borgman wrote:
>
> Hi Lennart,
>
>> Martin Soto says in the bug report below that rst.el is not included
>> in his Emacs 23.1.1 copy from Ubuntu Lucid Beta. His Emacs reports
>> this:
>>
>>   GNU Emacs 23.1.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.20.0) of 2010-03-29 on
>>   rothera, modified by Debian
>>
>> My copy of the downloaded Emacs 23.1.1 official binaries for w32 has
>> rst.el.
>
> The official emacs-23.1.tar.bz2 includes rst.el and on my gentoo box it
> is installed (and the ebuild basically just unpacks the tarball, run
> configure, make and make install).
>
> Maybe the ubuntu packagers stripped some files which can be installed
> from other packages, docutils in that case?
>
> Concerning Martin's "I'm pretty sure that the newer rst.el installed
> separately is loaded" issue: he should check that using
>
>  M-x list-load-path-shadows
>
> to be sure.

Thanks Tassilo. I will ask Martin about that.

Re: Is rst.el included in Emacs 23.1.1 or not?

[Jason Rumney]

Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

> Martin Soto says in the bug report below that rst.el is not included
> in his Emacs 23.1.1 copy from Ubuntu Lucid Beta. His Emacs reports
> this:
>
>   GNU Emacs 23.1.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.20.0) of 2010-03-29 on
>   rothera, modified by Debian

Ubuntu distributes the .el files in a separate package: emacs23-el
(gzipped, so actually it is rst.el.gz)

$ dpkg --search rst.el
emacs23-el: /usr/share/emacs/23.1/lisp/textmodes/rst.el.gz
emacs23-common: /usr/share/emacs/23.1/lisp/textmodes/rst.elc

Re: Is rst.el included in Emacs 23.1.1 or not?

[Lennart Borgman]

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> wrote:
> Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Martin Soto says in the bug report below that rst.el is not included
>> in his Emacs 23.1.1 copy from Ubuntu Lucid Beta. His Emacs reports
>> this:
>>
>>   GNU Emacs 23.1.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.20.0) of 2010-03-29 on
>>   rothera, modified by Debian
>
> Ubuntu distributes the .el files in a separate package: emacs23-el
> (gzipped, so actually it is rst.el.gz)
>
> $ dpkg --search rst.el
> emacs23-el: /usr/share/emacs/23.1/lisp/textmodes/rst.el.gz
> emacs23-common: /usr/share/emacs/23.1/lisp/textmodes/rst.elc

Thanks, I was not sure about that.

Martin reported that an old rst.el from DocUtils was shadowing the new
in Emacs. He has sent a bug report about this.