On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:55:26PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2012/10/25 11:03, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote: > > > Hi porters, > > > > > > what about getting this in? > > > > ping > > > > I can take over maintainership if that's a problem. > > Well, the dbus problem mikeb@ ran into needs to be handled in some > way, it ought to degrade gracefully if a dbus session isn't available, > hanging at exit in 50% of cases isn't very nice.
If you have a user dbus daemon running, emacs is happy. With the new code that starts dbus in users sessions automatically, there is no problem. Only users with heavily customized X sessions will suffer. I don't consider this as a show stopper. OTOH, disabling dbus support in emacs 24 completely is also a solution. Afaict it's not used for anything critical. > > Also we need to do something about the proliferation of emacs versions > in the ports tree. It's not *huge* but it's not like it's a small > fast-building port. There are special reasons for keeping 21 and IIRC > also 22, does this also apply to 23 or can 24 just go into editors/emacs > to replace emacs23? (I probably asked this before and it might even > have been answered but I can't find it in my local list archives at > the moment ;) > As far as I'm concerned emacs 24 can replace emacs 23. And I'm not sure what's the reason to keep 22 around. For me it can go too. (there are issues with zenicb and recent emacsen, but we should be able to fix them. zenicb.el is not that complicated). -- Matthieu Herrb
