From owner-freebsd-ports  Sun Aug 17 13:57:59 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA21696
          for ports-outgoing; Sun, 17 Aug 1997 13:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sag.space.lockheed.com (sag.space.lockheed.com [192.68.162.134])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA21685
          for <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 17 Aug 1997 13:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost by sag.space.lockheed.com; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/21Nov95-0423PM)
	id AA32058; Sun, 17 Aug 1997 13:56:41 -0700
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 13:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Brian N. Handy" <handy@sag.space.lockheed.com>
To: Gary Kline <kline@thought.org>
Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: XEmacs-19.15 port is bad
In-Reply-To: <199708171650.JAA18572@tao.thought.org>
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.970817135406.18812A-100000@sag.space.lockheed.com>
X-Files: The truth is out there
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>	I don't understand the official position on 20.2 either.  It
>	has the MULE (internationalization) support as the default 
>	and is huge.  It may be that the 19.X version lacks MULE and
>	20.X has it.

This is true, though I believe there are other differences.  (I lurk on
the newsgroup.)  It's possible to compile 20.2 without the MULE support,
which might be a useful consideration.  At the risk of being flamed by the
Xemacs folks, I'd suggest we change the port to 20.x and make MULE an
option in the Makefile.

Not sure how big the package becomes when you do this.


Brian