[Emacs defaulting to version 19]
Quote:> There is, if you're trying to run those Elisp programs that have not
> been modified to play well with 20.3...
The people to ask if you really want to know are the relevant
maintainers. I'm just guessing.
Quote:> > >> 2. Why do I get xdm for a login when I didn't ask for it?
> > Mark> You installed the xdm package, which runs xdm by default.
> > Mark> Deinstalling the package or fiddling with the init script
> > Mark> will stop it running.
> >Well, I installed it all right, but not because I wanted to. I wasn't
> >asked. I just took the "huge development" option and it was,
> >apparently, a part of the package.
> Arguably this should be a more visibly selectable option; the
> "pro argument" goes something like:
> "If you're installing X, wouldn't you want to start X by default?"
There's also the "you're taking a standard list of packages, so you
get whatever we choose".
Quote:> > >> 3. Why is the default compiler (gcc) version 220.127.116.11? It's
> > >> more than 2 years old. Should I really believe that that is
> > >> the version that debian maintainers are using?
> > Mark> It's only the default gcc - the C++ and Fortran compilers
> > Mark> are the EGCS ones and is also an egcs package as well which
> > Mark> installs the EGCS C compiler as egcc. Since version 2.0
> > Mark> kernel is only guarenteed to work with gcc 2.7.2 and
> > Mark> requires some unofficial patches for use with EGCS gcc 2.7.2
> > Mark> is the version chosen to provide the gcc command.
> >This, however, can lead to confusion and error. The way I found out
It does - the situation sucked, and has thankfully been rectified.
All the distributions that I know about shipped with all the latest
goodies while kernel 2.0 and EGCS were both current had a hack like
this, it's just that Debian is the only one which hasn't released
Sometimes ultra-stability sucks.
Quote:> It may be six months yet before that filters down to all the
Since Debian appears to be the only distribution left with kernel 2.0
so the main problem is mostly already gone - the output of gcc
--version doesn't really matter, but the multiple versions of gcc
Quote:> >(Another oddity: the exim documentation is not installed by default,
> >if you need to make changes to the mailer, you have to go hunt up the
> >docu. That makes little sense to me.)
> That's a bit odd.
Bugged me too, although the configuration script seems to have ironed
out most of the common complaints by now. Seems like someone ought to
submit a wishlist bug about this.
Quote:> > Mark> I guess the reason for installing them all is that while
> > Mark> Emacs 19 is standard developers are more likely to want the
> > Mark> more current version and taking sides in the Emacs/XEmacs
> > Mark> debate would annoy some people.
> >emacs 19 is <not> standard. In fact, it's deprecated. I'll wager not
> >even 10% of debian users would look for version 19 if it were not
> >installed. A good deal of new elisp development will not even work
> >with version 19.
I'd wager that an even higher percentage of users don't care either
way, but what would I know :-) . Like I said, ask the maintainers.
Quote:> There's probably some critical package that someone worries about that
> doesn't work with version 20; I'll not claim to know what...
The packages custom, emacs-czech, rememberance-agent and vm in Slink
all depend emacs19 without providing the option of another Emacs.
Quote:> >Okay. Of course, I don't necessarily have to modify only one
> >script. If I want to make a change in, say runlevel 2, I have to look
> >through every script in init.d to see if I'm going to break anything
> >else by doing so. It would seem like it would be easier if I had a
> >separate set of scripts for runlevel 2.
> I'd think you have the method backwards...
No, I'm just not explaining very well. In fact, I don't understand
what I was talking about there at all. Apparently, I need to release
Usenet posts less early and less often.
Quote:> If you go in and modify /etc/init.d/, then you "clearly must intend"
> to mess with anything that runs that script, in *all* runlevels.
Quote:> If, in contrast, you want to merely mess with runlevel 2, 'twould be
> appropriate to go into /etc/rc2.d/, and break the symbolic link to
I find that this is so uncommon I've never done it - when I've wanted
to change an init script, it's been in a way that applies to all
runlevels. Having one copy of the script means the change only needs
to be made once.
If I did want something different I'd probably create a new script in
init.d to avoid confusion - the two versions would be controlling
Quote:> [aside: The fact that neither BSD nor SYSV init schemes are
> unambiguously perfect are why some people have started looking at
> alternatives, such as david parsons' "init" for ``Mastodon;''
> apparently some Debian folk are also looking at a successor to their
> init that would have all config in one file in similar fashion...]
We are? Any references (not disbelief - more curiosity. I know about
the discussion on -devel at the minute but I'll wait for code or at
least a nice spec before I get e*d about something happening)?
The only thing I'm aware of that seems relevant is the proposals for a
better way of handling all the questions you get asked during package
installation which would allow questions to be presented through
whatever interface you like. This would allow fancy GUIs and
automatic setup with configuration downloaded over a network or taken
from a config file. One nice-looking system (probably the one which
will get used) just got an initial release, so will probably be in at
least quite wide use by the release after next.
 Actually, now that I think about it Madrake may not have, but they
use PGCC where the official attitude to Linux kernel compatibility
issues is basically "unless you can point out a definite bug in PGCC
and preferrably provide a patch we don't have the time or enthusiasm