SCO Unix System V, the last operating on which I've run Emacs. Huge pain in the ...

throwanem · on Dec 8, 2016

I don't think he was saying that Emacs is hard to install on Ubuntu. (It's not.) OP said earlier in the post that he switched to Arch because Ubuntu doesn't package a version of Emacs new enough to satisfy the requirements on the latest version of Spacemacs, which wants Emacs 24.4, which in turn is only available from the repo if you're running Ubuntu 16.x. Building Emacs 24.4 from source seems to me like it would be easier than switching distros, but apparently OP feels differently, and more power to him.

The comparison between Arch and Ubuntu appeared rather to be on the basis of FSF blessedness:

> (the FSF probably wouldn’t like that I’m using Arch Linux, but it’s certainly better than Ubuntu)

which would make sense, considering that Ubuntu gets quite a lot more stick than Arch on the relevant FSF page: https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html

pawadu · on Dec 9, 2016

> wants Emacs 24.4, which in turn is only available from the repo if you're running Ubuntu 16.x.

This is not an emacs problem, it is much bigger than that. Ubuntu, and Debian (unless you are on unstable) ship with ancient versions of many things. This shows how inefficient the package maintainer system is. Lets see if snappy (or some competing technology) manages to fix that.

disgruntledphd2 · on Dec 10, 2016

I find it odd that people seem unaware of build-dep, and downloading the source.

I'm not a developer (I do data analysis), but compiling Emacs from source on Ubuntu (after running build-dep emacs24) has never caused me problems.

But hey, I'm sure Arch is awesome, and if I had more time I'd totally be running it.

GFK_of_xmaspast · on Dec 8, 2016

SCO sysV is well over a decade old at this point.

mikestew · on Dec 8, 2016

So you get my point, then? Or maybe not. (To be more clear, my personal experience with emacs is irrelevant. I was referring to the author's experience in my original comment.)