From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/56022 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jesper Harder Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Gnus 5.11 in Emacs CVS Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:46:14 +0100 Sender: ding-owner@lists.math.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1074127708 4846 80.91.224.253 (15 Jan 2004 00:48:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:48:28 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ding-owner+M4562@lists.math.uh.edu Thu Jan 15 01:48:25 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AgvgP-00078H-00 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:48:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by malifon.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1AgvfS-0000lv-00; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:47:26 -0600 Original-Received: from justine.libertine.org ([66.139.78.221] ident=postfix) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1AgvfJ-0000ln-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:47:17 -0600 Original-Received: from pfepc.post.tele.dk (pfepc.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.237]) by justine.libertine.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEEAC3A0026 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:47:16 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from [195.249.130.83] (0xc3f98253.esnxr3.ras.tele.dk [195.249.130.83]) by pfepc.post.tele.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72DDD2628A8 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:47:14 +0100 (CET) Original-To: ding@gnus.org Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: (Simon Josefsson's message of "Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:20:44 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) Precedence: bulk Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:56022 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:56022 Simon Josefsson writes: > We could drop lpath/dgnushack in favor of automake's elisp support. > I did that locally a few weeks ago, without any obvious problem. It > generated a bunch of new byte compiler warnings, which we should > fix. Regarding those warnings: Is there a reason that we often do (eval-when-compile (require 'foo)) rather than[1] (autoload 'foo-open "foo") The later would remove the "might not be defined at runtime" warnings. [1] or autoload cookies, if it's used in many files.