From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: [DEV] Bump Emacs requirement to 24.4? Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 11:28:28 +0200 Message-ID: <87egj4q4sj.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <87io8tfrtk.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87oai9c531.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46589) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZQXjx-0001p6-07 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 05:27:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZQXjv-0007Np-Ui for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 05:27:00 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::195]:55821) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZQXjv-0007Nh-Np for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 05:26:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87oai9c531.fsf@Rainer.invalid> (Achim Gratz's message of "Sat, 15 Aug 2015 10:45:54 +0200") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Achim Gratz Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hello, Achim Gratz writes: > Debian Squeeze LTS or whatever they call it doesn't w/o backports. > RHEL6 doesn't have it w/o epel (RHEL7 has 24.3 IIRC). > RaspberryPi doesn't have it. I don't think we have a lot of Org users on RaspberryPi. > I'm still falling over Emacs 22 in various forms and Emacs 23, where it > is standard is not always at the latest version (23.4). So what? If you have to deal with Emacs 23, you can also live with Org 8.3. It is by no mean a sub-par release. It is also brand new. > I've been doing a lot of this compat stuff, but I gave up since I > couldn't get ERT to work on XEmacs. Org did build (with lots of errors) > until some point and it was at least superficially usable. The two > XEmacs users on this list have never responded to any requests for > further testing. So I guess that XEmacs can be considered > unsupportable. Unfortunately, this situation is not very good. We have compatibility functions all over the place for zero benefit. > If you were hoping to get rid of compat, then have a look at the warnings > on Emacs 25. I can only handle one fight at a time. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou