Re: emacs -> emacs19. Why?
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> writes:
> Well, there was some confusion as to what should inherit the
> emacs mantle. emacs20 was a definite contender, as was the old emacs
> 19.34. To an extent, even XEmacs has some claim to that. It was
> decided to switch the name to emacs{19,20,21,...}; the problem does
> not lie there. (there still people running 18.59, a wonderfull emacs
> version, and the only one that, rumor has it, runs on a palm III)
Right. We don't want to be in the business of deciding which emacs is
the "one true emacs". We'll leave that for the clerics. Given that,
the old emacs needed a name change. What I'm *not* sure about (though
there's probably a reason I'm not thinking of now) is why we can't
have emacs19 conflict and replace emacs. That would eliminate the one
legitimate objection (IMO).
--
Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: