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

Re: XEmacs, Emacs and elisp

>>>>> "Fabien" == Fabien Ninoles <ninf01@GEL.USherb.CA> writes:

 Fabien> On 26 Feb 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 >> Hi, "Helmut" == Helmut Geyer <Helmut.Geyer@IWR.Uni-Heidelberg.De>
 >> "Milan" == ilan Zamazal <pdm@blackbird.ics.muni.cz> [A good
 >> discussion of the problems with supporting multiple Emacsen on the
 >> same box partly elided]
 >> vm-emacs vm-xemacs tm-emacs tm-xemacs
 >> and so on, as being the only solution technically feasible in the
 >> long run. It is cleaner, and the only con is disk space usage
 >> (which maybe be the lesser evil compared to what we may face as
 >> the elisp dialects continue to evolve apart).

 Fabien> What I suggest is to have two standards distributions of
 Fabien> (X&GNU)emacs with the same based components (that really mean
 Fabien> to crippled the current upstream distribution of Xemacs) and
 Fabien> distributing each package both in emacs and xemacs as suggest
 Fabien> by manoj. We have also to find a way to share elisp files
 Fabien> between the two, although I think we can let them
 Fabien> configuration independant. May be a install-elisp utilities
 Fabien> could be useful?

 Fabien> Any comments?

Until the XEmacs distribution comes split up I have no plans on
splitting XEmacs up.  And if comes to the point where this is the
general consensus then I don't want the responsibility of distributing
XEmacs.  I don't want to have to figure out what parts of XEmacs
depend on what others and so on.

XEmacs comes all nicely integrated.  I see no reason to break that.


@James LewisMoss                 | moss@cs.sc.edu | Blessed Be!
@    http://www.cs.sc.edu/~moss  | dres@scsn.net  | Linux is cool!
@"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com

Reply to: