On 28-11-13 09:45, Jarek Czekalski wrote: > W dniu 2013-11-28 09:30, Samuel Thibault pisze: >> Jarek Czekalski, le Thu 28 Nov 2013 09:18:37 +0100, a écrit : >>> That is: if we decide to run Emacspeak 39 on Emacs 24, don't bother to >>> support Emacs 23. >> I don't think this can work: other packages may not support Emacs 24 >> yet, and some people probably do use both those other packages *and* >> emacspeak. > > It would be cool to support more Emacs versions, but I can't imagine a > reliable testing procedure to catch all possible configurations, upgrade > paths and cross Emacs installations and usage. What I would like to have > is a default of Emacs 24 with Emacspeak 39 and clear scenarios of how to > test Emacspeak, considering Emacs versions. If we could come up with clear testing procedures, we could surely also apply them on multiple emacs packages. > My idea is to simplify things, but if we can handle the complicated > case, no problem. If that would be the case, then my opinion is that we should support the emacs that the emacs package points to, i.e. the recommended emacs package in Debian. Currently that is emacs23. > It's also possible that users needing old Emacs stay with old Emacspeak. How do the do that, most people would just get the updated package. > Or they can build Emacspeak on their own. That is not the idea of the Debian social contract. http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html > Or they can configure it to > run through a different Emacs version, themselves. Anyway, I'd make them > responsible for version mixing. On the other hand a simple user should > receive a fully tested modern configuration. And we still have to supply upgrade paths. That is what this bug is about, IIUC. > I am new in Debain release procedure, so please direct me to proper > information pages, in case I miss some basics. http://packages.debian.org/sid/emacs Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature