Re: Emacsen intermediate step proposal.
> > I think 27 packages outweighs approx. 2 packages of emacs.
>
> I think thousands of users outweighs 27 packages, especially when
> those packages already get little enough work done on them that
> tossing in the s/emacs/emacsen/ "in passing" isn't nearly free.
So... All the packages that have some dependancy on emacs have ZERO users?
That's not a fair comparison. My point was that those 27 packages would
_not_ get fixed in any sort of timely manner. Thus, we have a choice of
affecting thousands of users in one obvious manner and only once, or we can
affect thousands of users in more subtle and annoying manners for a long time
to come.
(This _was_ my point... See below before commenting.)
> Certainly 27 packages, a number of which will be emacs19 only (since
> they're bundled with xemacs) should be no problem for the three
> current emacsen maintainers to split among ourselves for
> non-maintainer updates. And note, it's *4* packages of emacs --
> emacs19, emacs20 (pending, but what inspired Rob :-), xemacs19,
> xemacs20... and I would not be suprised to see at least one more in
> the next year [some version of emacs with guile dropped in, at least
> as a hack...]. Getting the coexistance to work *well* would be a
> valuable thing. Hopefully this would make it *easier* to add more
> packages (like zenirc...)
If you're going to patch those 27 packages, then that's another matter.
Presumably then the transition will be seemless. Given that, my only
objection is I much prefer the virtual name "emacs" to "emacsen", but
that's such a minor thing that I'm sure I'll get over it. <grin>
Brian
( bcwhite@verisim.com )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generated by Signify v1.03. For this and more, visit http://www.verisim.com/
--
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: