Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: RFC: Emacs add-on packages and make."):
...
> Hmm. I guess I would agree. I am uploading a new version of
> psgml that tries to byte compile if make is not available. The
> preference is for make to be used if available, but it shall try and
> byte compile in the absence of make.
I think this idea is of doubtful value. Surely the user would not
expect the nature of their installation to depend so strongly on what
order they decided to install things ?
I find it very strange that people want to compile these things in the
postinst. Surely the point of having binary packages is so that
programs don't have to be compiled on the user's system, with all the
difficult issues that that creates ?
Is there something I'm missing here ? Perhaps this has been discussed
before, in which case I apologise for missing it and asking now.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
