[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17
From: |
Daniel O'Connor |
Subject: |
Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17 |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:32:06 +0930 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.7 |
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 05:43, Michael Albinus wrote:
> > (or (>= emacs-major-version 20)
> > (load "cl-seq")))
>
> But tramp.el has the same code inside. Did it compile without pain?
Yeah I know.. It DID compile OK.. It is very strange :(
> Best regards, Michael.
>
> PS: which Tramp version do you use? 2.0.45?
I use .44 as that is the latest I can see.
--
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au
"The nice thing about standards is that there
are so many of them to choose from."
-- Andrew Tanenbaum
GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C
pgp2TeCqEdE_2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Daniel O'Connor, 2004/10/11
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Daniel O'Connor, 2004/10/11
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Michael Albinus, 2004/10/12
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17,
Daniel O'Connor <=
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Michael Albinus, 2004/10/17
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Daniel O'Connor, 2004/10/17
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Michael Albinus, 2004/10/18
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Daniel O'Connor, 2004/10/18
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Michael Albinus, 2004/10/18
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Daniel O'Connor, 2004/10/18