[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: [AUCTeX] Problem with Auctex Preview on Fedora

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: [AUCTeX] Problem with Auctex Preview on Fedora
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:35:54 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Reiner Steib <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 18 2006, David Kastrup wrote:
>> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>>> The files prv-xemacs.el and preview.el have been compiled with an
>>> incompatible version of XEmacs seemingly, a developer version that
>>> _has_ those functions available.
>>> Quite unfortunate.  Since our XEmacs packages are supposed to also run
>>> under XEmacs 21.4, it would be prudent to have them created using
>>> 21.4.  Reiner?
> IIRC I prepared the release packages on my notebook on SUSE 10.0
> (xemacs- whereas the snapshots (incl. the XEmacs
> package) are prepared on SUSE 9.2 (xemacs-21.4.15-64.4; given that
> security support for SUSE 9.2 has been discontinued, this machine will
> be upgraded quite soon).
>> If this is indeed the case, one solution would be to have the
>> compatibility functions compiled into our XEmacs port unconditionally.
>> I am checking a patch in that is supposed to achieve this.
> Is it still necessary to have it compiled with XEmacs 21.4 after
> this change?

Well, if the change works (I did not test it!), the answer depends
mainly on whether the byte-code of 21.5 can be expected to be
compatible to 21.4.

> Given my past experience with XEmacs builds and the frightening
> `system-configuration-options'[1] in SUSE's XEmacs, compiling a
> suitable XEmacs 21.4 is something I'd like to avoid.  I'm not sure
> which features are required for AUCTeX/preview-latex.  MULE?  Image
> formats?

For compiling, MULE would likely be required for the Japanese style

Anyway, could you check whether the functions people have complained
about are actually defined in your version of XEmacs 21.5?  It would
be good to know that this and nothing other has been the source of the
recently reported problems.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]