Re: Bug#729660: ITP: xemacs21 -- highly customizable text editor
On 11/16/2013 07:39 PM, Filippo Rusconi wrote:
> How about knowing the shortcuts while having emacs running in a
I assume you haven't used emacs before then? ;) emacs has an excellent
online help and if you don't know a key shortcut, you can hit Meta-x
and type the command in a descriptive long form with auto completion
working (using TAB). Once you have executed the command like this,
emacs will actually show you the keyboard shortcut in its
>>> would be enormously surprising to me if people had abandoned X11 support
>>> en masse. As for people not caring about the appearence... if you're
>>> going to be looking at something for the best part of the day it seems
>>> strange that you'd not be interested in how it looks, it's a factor in
>> Well, as I said, if you're really using emacs for what it's renown
>> for, you don't care about the X11 user interface and the looks
>> because you use non-windowed mode anyway.
> Come on, John Paul Adrian, how can you assert all these things?
Please just call me Adrian ;).
> you do any survey? Do you really think that your few colleagues
> actually are a mirror of a whole community of people using software
> for doing lots of different things? I do use plain GNU Emacs with a
> grahical interface (that is, with X11, not in console mode) the whole
> day, for doing either LaTeX, C/C++, Python, Bash, XML, WhatEver
No, but emacs is *THE* software when it comes to shortcuts and it's
been like this forever. Just read any book on emacs like the
O'Reilly book with the gnu on it. If you're using emacs and avoiding
the keyboard shortcuts, you're abusing it!
> How about letting Mark do his job as a Debian Developer and judge him
> on his abilities to fix things?
As I said before, I am not criticizing him, I am criticizing his
idea to reintroduce a package that was removedm because both
upstream and Debian lost interest in maintaining it, without
actually providing a valid reason to do so.
And, no, "I think the interface is visually more appealing"
is not a valid argument for me, sorry.
Russ claimed that XEmacs has some features that emacs doesn't,
however, he wasn't able to mention them.
> I have absolutely no interest in
> defining if XEmacs is worth it in Debian or not. The usage count
> should somehow help us. Can we assume that Mark will show a
> responsible behaviour? Also, may I ask how what he is trying to do is
> so detrimental to the project that we feel like spending time chirping
> about it?
As mentioned before by Paul and Andreas, we're wondering why all
of a sudden Mark is picking up the package while it has been
abandoned all the time and eventually removed. There was no ITA
as far as I know.
> Don't we have other interesting Debian-Project-related things to
> discuss about ?
Do you prefer fighting over init systems instead? ;) If you don't
like the discussion, then don't join it. It should be allowed
to express my opinion and raise some questions. I did neither
insult Mark nor question his skills at any time. I just think
that the idea to maintain something which has just been removed
because maintenance both upstream and in Debian was dead, is at
>> As I explained before, the problem with such packages is that they
>> can introduce unnecessary (RC) bugs which may delay the release
>> during the freeze. I am aware of the fact that the release team has
>> addressed the issue by removing packages from testing now which
>> have had RC bugs longer than a certain time frame, but I think we should
>> avoid such situations in the first place. And the fact that a very
>> limited group of users is using XEmacs doesn't justify the hassle.
> If there are RC bugs for unused software, the software needs to be
> removed and thus does not go into stable. Period. If this removal work
> is done well before the freeze, better. Again, let Mark do his job and
> check the package in due time.
As I said before, I care about the whole of Debian and I prefer
not having too much unmaintained packages in there. And I am not
necessarily talking about the package maintenance but upstream
>> If someone is so keen to actually prefer XEmacs over emacs, they
>> can just download and build the package from source.
> Selfish vision, to my humble opinion. That way of thinking defeats the
> whole idea of having software to help people do what they want the way
> they want.
How is that selfish? Selfish would be not caring about anything but
my own packages and packages that I use. But, again, I care about
the whole of Debian and I simply don't like the idea people using
software which is mostly unmaintained.
>>> At the end of the day if you're not interested in a leaf package just
>>> ignore it, work on something you do care about instead.
>> No, I do care about the whole of Debian and not just about my particular
>> packages and honestly, it bothers me to no end when I see packages which
>> have dozens or hundreds of bugs unanswered because no one is stepping
>> in to fix that. And I think Paul feels the same. I rather prefer to
>> have a package removed than it being full of bugs, no matter whether
>> it's a leaf package or not.
> Mark is indeed trying to fix the bugs, if I understand
> correctly. Let's assume he is a responsible and technically sound DD.
I hope so and especially hope that none of the RC bugs will make it
into the upload.
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - firstname.lastname@example.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - email@example.com
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913