Re: Incoming directory status
Hi,
I do agree with Rob that XEmacs users should not be asked to
install emacs just to get a few (small) programs, but I don't think
we should force people to choose one or the other. If you have a
multi-user machine, you may indeed want both, depending on your
users.
Hmmm. If it were just the packages, we could change something
in the config files (LIB_EXEC_DIR?) to have it look in a different
place. Maybe have users add things to their path if they want to use
XEmacs? This needs thought.
manoj
>>"Rob" == Rob Browning <osiris@cs.utexas.edu> writes:
>>>>> "D" == David Engel <david@elo.ods.com> writes:
D> giving every alternative package equal status. Whenever possible,
D> we should try to standardize on one package and have the other
D> packages deal with it accordingly. For example, in this case,
D> xemacs can either depend on emacs to get etags,
Rob> I don't think this is a good idea. One of the goals of the package
Rob> system should be to maximize the ratio of things that you install that
Rob> you want to things that you are forced to install that you don't want.
Rob> Most people will probably want emacs or xemacs, but not both. Forcing
Rob> the xemacs users to install emacs seems a bit excessive.
Rob> --
Rob> Rob
--
"SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" --
Ken Thompson %%
Manoj Srivastava Systems Research Programmer, Project Pilgrim,
Phone: (413) 545-3918 A143B Lederle Graduate Research Center,
Fax: (413) 545-1249 University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003
<srivasta@pilgrim.umass.edu> <URL:http://www.pilgrim.umass.edu/%7Esrivasta/>
Reply to: