[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Incoming directory status


	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

	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.


>>"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: