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

Re: Missing xemacs


I think you made the wrong decision here.  James LewisMoss never
responded to the 8857 bug list to your request for pulling xemacs.  In
fact, I couldn't find anyone other than yourself who supported the
decision to pull xemacs completely.  The discussion was whether
xemacs-19.14 or 19.15 was the best choice for bo.  Could you please
state your reasons for removing xemacs?  xemacs-19.14 doesn't have any
fatal flaws.  Bug 8857 suggested that 19.15 be the official bo xemacs;
it did not suggest that xemacs-19.14 be removed from bo distribution

xemacs-19.14 and emacs conflict, but that is generally not considered
a reason for removing a package.  xemacs-19.14 is usable and better
than nothing.  Perhaps I misunderstood our policy, but I thought that
a package should only be removed from stable if it has a critical
bug.  I didn't see any discussion on any mailing claiming that xemacs
has a critical bug.  In any case, the removal of xemacs requires
further discussion.

Please reconsider the decision to pull xemacs from bo.

Guy Maor <maor@ece.utexas.edu> writes:

> sailer@sun10.sep.bnl.gov (Tim Sailer) writes:
> > Since I didn't get an answer on -private, I'll do this the public
> > way. Xemacs seems to be missing from bo. It's in rex and hamm. I con-
> > sider a missing major package a bug unless there was a reason it
> > was pulled. Brian? Anyone?
> See bug 8857.

Kevin Dalley

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: