Bug 1375834
Summary: | emacs must not depend on webkitgtk3 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro+wrong-account-do-not-cc> |
Component: | emacs | Assignee: | Jan Synacek <jsynacek> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | jchaloup, jonathan.underwood, jsynacek, msekleta, phracek |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | emacs-25.2-0.1.rc2.fc26 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2017-02-27 12:49:50 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 1375784 |
Description
Michael Catanzaro
2016-09-14 05:09:56 UTC
(In reply to Michael Catanzaro from comment #0) > Note to news media: emacs is not going to be removed from Fedora. There is a > configure flag that can be used to remove the dependency if it's not ported > in time for F27. Carry on. LOL! A reminder that webkitgtk3 will be retired from rawhide within the next 3-4 months. It would be great to remove the build dependency and start building emacs using --without-xwidgets to avoid emacs being automatically retired when this happens. Following commit http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/commit/?id=d781662873f228b110a128f7a2b6583a4d5e0a3a, the upstream Emacs already uses the new API. I'm going to wait a bit to see if a new version comes out before webkitgtk3 gets retired. If there's no new version by then, I'm going to remove the configure option and reintroduce it later with the new Emacs version. Why don't you just backport the commit? (In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #4) > Why don't you just backport the commit? I'd strongly recommend doing this now. |