Bug 85943

Summary: wl not needed for wl-xemacs
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: Reuben Thomas <rrt>
Component: specspoAssignee: Jens Petersen <petersen>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact:
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 8.0   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-04-17 13:22:18 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Reuben Thomas 2003-03-11 09:38:41 UTC
Description of problem:

The description of the wl package says that you need to install wl-xemacs "as well" for XEmacs. This is false; you only need to install wl-xemacs. I suggest removing "as well"; (you could change it to "instead", but of course having both packages installed might also be desirable, to run wl in both FSFEmacs & XEmacs).

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

2.8.1.

How reproducible:

Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. rpm -qi wl
2.
3.
    
Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

There doesn't seem to be a wl-xemacs package to file bugs against in bugzilla (not that it's really needed in this case).

Comment 1 Jens Petersen 2003-03-11 10:52:19 UTC
Sorry, which package release are you referring to?

As far as I can see, this was already fixed in RHL 7.3.

The last version with this problem looks to be in wl-2.4.1-6
in RHL 7.2 ("You also need to install wl-xemacs for XEmacs."),
later releases just have "For XEmacs you need to install wl-xemacs."

Comment 2 Reuben Thomas 2003-03-12 08:56:55 UTC
It still says (wl-2.8.1) "You also need to install wl-xemacs for XEmacs." It's the "also" I take issue with (this is a small quibble).

Comment 3 Jens Petersen 2003-03-20 09:59:44 UTC
Ok, I fixed the text in the spec file, but that change
was not reflected yet in specspo.  Thanks for the report.


Comment 4 Jens Petersen 2003-03-20 12:55:48 UTC
I checked in an updated description to specspo.
You should see it next time specspo is updated.