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

Re: Incoming directory status

On 10 May 1996, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> 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.

I couldn't agree more... Forcing people to download all of emacs (a 5 MB
package) when what they want to use is XEmacs seems... wrong. And the
'multi-user' machine is a good point. 'Conflicts' should be reserved for
packages that do exactly the same thing and can't possibly live together,
IMHO. (If you think XEmacs provides exactly the same stuff that Emacs does,
just eval (require 's-region) on the nearest XEmacs... And both packages
can live hapily together.)

So if they can't conflict with each other and we can't have one depend on
the other, what options do we have left?

Well, either use diversions or create a small package that contains
whatever's common to emacs and xemacs... or a combination of these.

IHMO, the way to do it would be as follows:

1. create a etags-ctags package and have editors that include [ec]tags
   'suggest' that package instead.

 At least emacs, xemacs and elvis provide '?tags'... That would seem to
 suggest a separate etags-ctags package wouldn't be a bad thing. And many
 emacs/vi people don't use these... 

2. Use diversions for the rest of stuff...
 That's be emacsclient, and b2m and rcs-checkin (what are these two used
 for, anyways?)

An alternate, less clean (IMHO) but still workable approach would be to use
diversions for all the conflicting files. Although I'm not sure if that's
quite what diversions were intended for...



Reply to: