From xemacs-m  Mon Sep  8 20:24:33 1997
Received: from altair.xemacs.org (steve@xemacs.miranova.com [206.190.83.19])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA04028
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 20:24:32 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from steve@localhost)
	by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA31928;
	Mon, 8 Sep 1997 18:28:56 -0700
Mail-Copies-To: never
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: 19.16-b91: purespace, codename
References: <9708301629.AA17797@GS213.SP.CS.CMU.EDU>
X-Face: `'%\i;ySOu]g?NlziJSk_$&@]KP`}~PEQPjZ5;nxSaDW_o$4+4%Ab]%Ifw3ZR;7TIT3,O,'
 @2{L;]ox6kc;$_5kU'n**9vFg-]eV~GbxSVCx|(s%uR[],*:^WKmC`B}(;|k9/m]gwt?&`t;^rfCJg
 khHH>pP1W\)xM0U@!FNDD72{3fDP$PkBhx^7Z?-WxH6DbFN:QOnT`llzW}VGdYv;n9lzljQvKTIBhQ
 YuV
X-Attribution: sb
From: SL Baur <steve@xemacs.org>
In-Reply-To: Darrell Kindred's message of "Sat, 30 Aug 1997 12:29:36 -0400"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: 08 Sep 1997 18:28:55 -0700
Message-ID: <m2wwkrjmw8.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
Lines: 31
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.65/XEmacs 20.3(beta20) - "Tirana"

Darrell Kindred <dkindred@cmu.edu> writes:

> I've built 19.16-b91 for Linux (config below), and so far
> it's working fine.  There are a couple of minor oddities
> though:

>   1. As in b90, the default purespace is insufficient.  (I
>      forgot to report it earlier.)  This is not too big a
>      deal of course, since it rebuilds automatically.

It *is* a big deal.  I've explained 4 or 5 times already why it is not 
good to be under in guessing instead of over so I won't go into it
again.

The 19.15 purespace guesses were done by Chuck in an afternoon just
prior to 19.15 release (requires compilation with --debug=yes of *all*
available options).  If someone wishes to volunteer to do this, please
let me know, otherwise I'm just going to set the value very high.

>   2. The value of emacs-version is

>           19.16 "" XEmacs Lucid (beta91)

>      (i.e., the quotes for the codename are there but the
>      codename is empty).  Is this intentional?

No, it's a bug to be fixed in beta92[1].

Footnotes: 
[1]  Or whatever it gets named.  It might have only a symbolic name.

