X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4A0C062C.7030409@cornell.edu> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 07:53:16 -0400 From: Ken Brown User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: emacs 23 References: <23523466.post@talk.nabble.com> <4A0AE529.2000506@cornell.edu> <23524451.post@talk.nabble.com> <4A0AEF5D.7000803@cornell.edu> <23526019.post@talk.nabble.com> <4A0B04F9.7090005@cornell.edu> <23526801.post@talk.nabble.com> <4A0B12D0.4020804@cornell.edu> <23536460.post@talk.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <23536460.post@talk.nabble.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On 5/14/2009 4:34 AM, Marc Girod wrote: > One thing I noticed, is that I used cperl-mode 6.2, > and 23.0.92 brought back 5.3 (21.2 had 4.23...). > > Do you think it would be worth upgrading it for everybody? > Or would this be a departure from 23 as on other platforms, > and therefore unwanted? I just built the plain vanilla source, which is intended for all platforms. I don't think the cygwin port should be different unless there's a good reason. > I just byte-compile 6.2 on 23.0.92, and got a lot of warnings for > various obsolete practices... That could explain why emacs-23 isn't shipping that version. > I'll send the transcript to Ilya... Keep me posted. Ken -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/