Re: no emacs/X binary packages considered bad, and worse than emacs with svg

To: Christopher Pinon <cjpinon%secondfloor.xyz@localhost>
Subject: Re: no emacs/X binary packages considered bad, and worse than emacs with svg
From: Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 00:24:49 +0200

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:20:14PM +0000, Christopher Pinon wrote:
> [...]
> I kept the option svg for emacs. (By the way, the rust amd64 binary on
> cdn.netbsd.org, although in the 8.1 directory, appears to have been
> built for 8.0.)

Yes; packages built on 8.0 runs without trouble on 8.1 (the opposite
may not be true)

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--

Follow-Ups:
- Re: no emacs/X binary packages considered bad, and worse than emacs with svg
  - From: Martin Husemann
- Re: no emacs/X binary packages considered bad, and worse than emacs with svg
  - From: Christopher Pinon

References:
- no emacs/X binary packages considered bad, and worse than emacs with svg
  - From: Greg Troxel
- Re: no emacs/X binary packages considered bad, and worse than emacs with svg
  - From: Christopher Pinon

Prev by Date: Re: no emacs/X binary packages considered bad, and worse than emacs with svg
Next by Date: Re: no emacs/X binary packages considered bad, and worse than emacs with svg
Previous by Thread: Re: no emacs/X binary packages considered bad, and worse than emacs with svg
Next by Thread: Re: no emacs/X binary packages considered bad, and worse than emacs with svg
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index