Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 194723 - please fix GNU Emacs support for dev-lisp/gcl
Summary: please fix GNU Emacs support for dev-lisp/gcl
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Common Lisp Bugs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 184166
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2007-10-04 18:12 UTC by Christian Faulhammer (RETIRED)
Modified: 2008-01-14 00:37 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---

Attachments
Patch for ebuild (gcl_emacs.patch,1.11 KB, patch)
2007-10-04 18:12 UTC, Christian Faulhammer (RETIRED) 		Details | Diff
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Christian Faulhammer (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-10-04 18:12:00 UTC 
Patches to follow
Comment 1 Christian Faulhammer (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-10-04 18:12:45 UTC 
Created attachment 132577 [details, diff]
Patch for ebuild
Comment 2 Marijn Schouten (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-10-05 10:37:08 UTC 
gcl is on our shitlist and will be removed in the near future. You prolly don't want to bother with patches.
Comment 3 Christian Faulhammer (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-10-05 10:52:42 UTC 
(In reply to comment #2)
> gcl is on our shitlist and will be removed in the near future. You prolly don't
> want to bother with patches.
 
 Even the non-cvs version?  Argh, third package I provided patches for which went into removal phase shortly after.

<goes into catatonia>
Comment 4 Marijn Schouten (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-10-05 10:57:11 UTC 
(In reply to comment #3)
>  Even the non-cvs version?

Yes
Comment 5 Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev 2007-12-17 20:29:26 UTC 
Should we then close this bug as WONTFIX?
Comment 6 Christian Faulhammer (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-01-14 00:37:43 UTC 
(In reply to comment #5)
> Should we then close this bug as WONTFIX?

yes