Re: It's Huntin' Season
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Thomas> Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
>> I would say that not being able to selectively over ride the
>> autoloads for the functions in bbdb-com.el to my own versions is a
Thomas> But if I want to selectively override some random feature of ls, I'm
Thomas> forced to do so by editing a non-conffile. Should I file a bugs
Thomas> against the fileutils package?
Strawman. As has been already pointed out, site-start.d files
are closer to init.d files than /usr/bin/ files. If you want to
change behaviour in emacs, you may need to edit non conffiles.
Emacs is a well known program. It comes with well known
capabilities. Add on programs modify the capabilities of emacs. Such
modifications should be amenable to user tweaking.
Thomas> Clearly there are some things that might remotely want to be
Thomas> overridden by somebody somewhere. *Every* file, if it does
Thomas> anything at all, might be modified by somebody to achieve
Thomas> some effect, and thus "configure" the system.
Yes. Well. Remember what I said about the non commonality of
Thomas> There must be *some* line here.
And we have drawn it. Stuff added by maintainers, which is run
at emacs startup, is deemed to be stuff that is configurable by the
No one is asking ls to be made into a conffile.
Could we find some other windmills to tilt at?
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the
courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the
difference." Reinhold Niebuhr
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C