emacs for Mac OS 10.3.1

emacs for Mac OS 10.3.1

[Chris Swoyer]

I'm a new mac user with a powerbook running OS X 10.3.1 (panther),
with X-windows, and the xcode stuff, and fink.

I need a version of emacs that has a good graphical interface,
interacts well with \LaTeX{} and auctex and reftex, allows tex
commands from within emacs, etc. (the version that shipped
with the OS is not at all up to this).

I've looked at enhanced carbon emacs, but it doesn't work with
panther yet. There is another version, via fink, emacs21-xaw3d
(also tried emacs32-nox), but I can't get my mac to build them; it
grinds for a long time and prints a lot of stuff to screen, but
always ends with "fatalerror 10".  I then tried to install the
binary version but get a message about unmet dependencies
involving ncurses.

Is there a tamer binary version of
emacs21-xaw3d out there anywhere (I need it sooner than I'll figure
out how to compile it) or a version of carbon emacs that now runs
on panther? Or some third possibility?

While I'm asking, what are the pluses and minuses of carbon
emacs and emacs21-xaw3d.

Thanks,
CS

Re: emacs for Mac OS 10.3.1

[Hugh Wolf]

On 2003-11-19, Chris Swoyer <fswoyer@cox.net> wrote:
> I've looked at enhanced carbon emacs, but it doesn't work with
> panther yet.

I'm using it in Panther to compose this followup.  It works fine for
me.



> There is another version, via fink, emacs21-xaw3d
> (also tried emacs32-nox), but I can't get my mac to build them; it
> grinds for a long time and prints a lot of stuff to screen, but
> always ends with "fatalerror 10".  I then tried to install the
> binary version but get a message about unmet dependencies
> involving ncurses.

You can build an emacs 21.2 with X11 support via fink if you get the
current package descriptions (in this case emacs21 21.2-26).  

There's no fink package description yet for emacs 21.3 w/X11 in the
'stable' tree.  The emacs21-xaw3d you mention above is 21.3, but it's
in the 'unstable' tree, which I've found it best to avoid even though
it is more current.



> While I'm asking, what are the pluses and minuses of carbon
> emacs and emacs21-xaw3d.

You can run the X11 client remotely...

Re: emacs for Mac OS 10.3.1

[Tim McNamara]

ISTR that www.mindlube.com had a precompiled Carbonized Emacs suitable
for Panther.  I've never run it so I can't comment on whether it works
(still using OS X 10.1.5).

Re: emacs for Mac OS 10.3.1

[leo]

"Chris Swoyer" <fswoyer@cox.net> wrote in message
news:KeQub.7405$b64.4194@okepread02...
> I need a version of emacs that has a good graphical interface,
> interacts well with \LaTeX{} and auctex and reftex, allows tex
> commands from within emacs, etc.

try http://members.shaw.ca/akochoi-emacs/. that's the one hugo talked about
as well. works like a treat!

> (the version that shipped with the OS is not at all up to this).

well, i guess apart from the GUI the built-in-emacs should be quite
coimplete as well and be perfect for TeXing...

leo

Re: emacs for Mac OS 10.3.1

[Hugh Wolf]

On 2003-11-19, Hugh Wolf <hwolf@deutsches.lieder.de> wrote:
> On 2003-11-19, Chris Swoyer <fswoyer@cox.net> wrote:
>> I've looked at enhanced carbon emacs, but it doesn't work with
>> panther yet.
>
> I'm using it in Panther to compose this followup.

Never mind, I missed the "enhanced" bit.  I'm using vanilla carbon
emacs, with no special hacks or enhancements, in Panther.  


> You can build an emacs 21.2 with X11 support via fink if you get the
> current package descriptions (in this case emacs21 21.2-26).  

This part is still true though...

Re: emacs for Mac OS 10.3.1

[Stephen H. Westin]

Hugh Wolf <hwolf@deutsches.lieder.de> writes:

> On 2003-11-19, Hugh Wolf <hwolf@deutsches.lieder.de> wrote:
> > On 2003-11-19, Chris Swoyer <fswoyer@cox.net> wrote:
> >> I've looked at enhanced carbon emacs, but it doesn't work with
> >> panther yet.
> >
> > I'm using it in Panther to compose this followup.
> 
> Never mind, I missed the "enhanced" bit.  I'm using vanilla carbon
> emacs, with no special hacks or enhancements, in Panther.  
> 
> 
> > You can build an emacs 21.2 with X11 support via fink if you get the
> > current package descriptions (in this case emacs21 21.2-26).  
> 
> This part is still true though...

I still haven't figured out the point to Fink. I just downloaded the
source and followed the instructions to build Emacs.

-- 
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Re: emacs for Mac OS 10.3.1

[Hugh Wolf]

On 2003-11-21, Stephen H. Westin <westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu> wrote:
> I still haven't figured out the point to Fink. 

The main reason is version control and dependency management.  It's
just like using dselect etc in Debian or rpm in Redhat.  It makes no
sense at all to build straight from tars imo if you have a good
software package manager available.

An important secondary reason in because lots of unix packages need
minor adjustments to build and/or run in osx, and the kind volunteers
at fink have already created the .patch files for the rest of us to
use.

Thirdly, in many cases prebuilt fink binary packages are available
for download.  Why build it yourself if it's already been done for
you in a sensible way?


All in all, why would you _not_ want to use fink?  What advantages
are you gaining by building everything manually yourself?  I can't
think of any.

Re: emacs for Mac OS 10.3.1

[Tim McNamara]

westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) writes:

> I still haven't figured out the point to Fink. I just downloaded the
> source and followed the instructions to build Emacs.

fink is handholding for Mac users who have never compiled software in
their lives, which is most of us.  fink will download the source,
check dependencies, automagically configure and build the application
and install it.  It also does so in a special directory tree, /sw, so
that it can be deleted with a drag to the trash and does no
modifications to the / directory.

fink also allows the use of dselect and apt as alternatives for
obtaining prebuilt binaries, again managing dependencies which is
unfamiliar territory for Mac users (Mac applications used to never
share libraries, for example; less true after OS 7 and now hardly true
at all).

Basically, fink allows Mac users access to Unix and X11 apps with only
a slight toe-wetting into the full Unix experience.

Re: emacs for Mac OS 10.3.1

[Stephen H. Westin]

Hugh Wolf <hwolf@deutsches.lieder.de> writes:

> On 2003-11-21, Stephen H. Westin <westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu> wrote:
> > I still haven't figured out the point to Fink. 
> 
> The main reason is version control and dependency management.  It's
> just like using dselect etc in Debian or rpm in Redhat.  It makes no
> sense at all to build straight from tars imo if you have a good
> software package manager available.
> 
> An important secondary reason in because lots of unix packages need
> minor adjustments to build and/or run in osx, and the kind volunteers
> at fink have already created the .patch files for the rest of us to
> use.
> 
> Thirdly, in many cases prebuilt fink binary packages are available
> for download.  Why build it yourself if it's already been done for
> you in a sensible way?
> 
> 
> All in all, why would you _not_ want to use fink?

Because it puts everything in a strange place where it isn't found by
most normal open-source software builds.

> What advantages
> are you gaining by building everything manually yourself?  I can't
> think of any.

Well, I was exposed to Fink in trying to port code from Linux. When I
went to build, say, libgphoto2, everything was broken, using the wrong
version of utilities, etc.

There are plenty of open-source projects, including Emacs, that have
integrated the Mac port into the main source tree and build procedure.

-- 
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Re: emacs for Mac OS 10.3.1

[Kevin Rodgers]

Stephen H. Westin wrote:

> Hugh Wolf <hwolf@deutsches.lieder.de> writes:
>>All in all, why would you _not_ want to use fink?
> 
> Because it puts everything in a strange place where it isn't found by
> most normal open-source software builds.

Can you make it do what you want, by e.g. linking /sw to /usr/local?

-- 
Kevin Rodgers

Re: emacs for Mac OS 10.3.1

[Tim McNamara]

Kevin Rodgers <ihs_4664@yahoo.com> writes:

> Stephen H. Westin wrote:
> 
> > Hugh Wolf <hwolf@deutsches.lieder.de> writes:
> >
> >>All in all, why would you _not_ want to use fink?
> >
> > Because it puts everything in a strange place where it isn't found
> > by most normal open-source software builds.
> 
> Can you make it do what you want, by e.g. linking /sw to /usr/local?

fink handles that in its original installation.  I've had no trouble
with conflicts or problems between stuff installed via fink and via
other methods.

Re: emacs for Mac OS 10.3.1

[Hugh Wolf]

On 2003-11-21, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) writes:
> fink is handholding for Mac users who have never compiled software in
> their lives

It's really not.  I've been building software from sources for 25+
years, which is not quite all my life but a pretty fair percentage of
it...If anything, the more experience you have with this kind of
thing, the more likely you are to appreciate what fink and similar
tools have to offer.

Look at the Linux community, which is made up almost exclusively of
software-savvy people.  All the Redhat users I know use rpm to install
software if at all possible.  Likewise, all the Debian users I know
use dselect, apt-get etc to install software.  Not because they need
hand-holding, but because version and dependency management are
understood to be Good Things.

Fink does exactly the same job for OSX.  The dual nature of OSX means
it has some extra restrictions (in particular, staying out of the way
of Apple's installers and updaters), but conceptually it's identical
to the Debian tools.