From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question. Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:21:17 +0300 (IDT) Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <20020612142053.C614.LEKTU@terra.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1023945958 5159 127.0.0.1 (13 Jun 2002 05:25:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 05:25:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Rob Browning , emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17IN7O-0001L6-00 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 07:25:58 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17INVX-000354-00 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 07:50:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17IN6H-0003En-00; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 01:24:49 -0400 Original-Received: from is.elta.co.il ([199.203.121.2]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17IN4v-00037p-00 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 01:23:25 -0400 Original-Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA25899; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:21:17 +0300 (IDT) X-Sender: eliz@is Original-To: Juanma Barranquero In-Reply-To: <20020612142053.C614.LEKTU@terra.es> Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:4814 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:4814 On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Juanma Barranquero wrote: > I've bootstrapped HEAD on Windows and on a RedHat 7.2, I've extracted > the symbols from each (text between \x1F and \x0A), sorted the lists and > compared them. There are 193 differences. Thanks for the footwork. Could you please identify the reasons for these differences? That is, what modules are present in the list submitted to make-docfile on each platform, and which explain these differences? AFAICS, there are some platform-specific files (that's where those w32-* and dos-* symbols come from); the question is whether all platforms should have the doc strings of those. Then there are some x-* symbols which I thought should be in all versions. And then there are some symbols like ucs-* and others which should have been in DOC on all systems--can you see why they aren't?