Re: Xemacs needs a real maintainer
>On 9 Mar 2004, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>Despite claims that he's around, James Lewis-Moss *still* isn't
>maintaining xemacs21 or xemacs21-packages at all properly -- he
>obviously doesn't have enough time. Look at the RC bugs, and note the
>total lack of comment from him.
>He said he didn't want any NMUs. I don't think that's a remotely
>reasonable attitude given the existence of bug #169861, a
>trivial-to-fix bug which has been festering for many, many months.
Right, he does not reply on a regular base to such reports, I
mentioned a small bug to him concerning the compilation of the non mule
package and he resolved this without announcing it.
Besides this minor things, I think the most urgent thing is to move
forward to the >21.4.9 since earlier versions have a bug in the
display engine as I mentioned earlier.
I also think it is a good thing to rely more on the xemacs-packages
system, auctex and x-symbol are examples of what I have in mind.
>If this isn't dealt with, I think xemacs21 and xemacs21-packages
>should be removed from 'sarge', because they're unacceptably buggy.
>This would entail the removal of three additional packages, but no
>more (most packages depending on xemacs21 have alternative
>dependencies on 'emacsen' or 'emacs21').
You are kidding? Xemacs is still in some ways superior to emacs and
giving up Xemacs is making debian *less* attractive.