[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Xemacs needs a real maintainer

On 10 Mar 2004, jmarant@free.fr wrote:

> Quoting Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es>:
>> On 10 Mar 2004, jmarant@free.fr wrote:
>>>> I forget to add one important thing of course, the Xemacs package
>>>> system which allows on the fly actualization. Emacs has nothing
>>>> similar.
>>> According to what I read, it is not a missing feature, it is an
>>> unwanted feature. I'm personaly happy with packages provided as
>>> debian packages, so i don't need to grab the big bunch of packages
>>> I don't use (emacs21-support or alike).
>> Just a moment,
> Warning: I don't want this debate to turn into another war, that has
> no place among emacsen users.
Right I agree.

> Except that you cannot keep track of packages you installed throught
> dpkg -l.  Furthermore, I checked myself available XEmacs packages
you mean third party packages  can not be handled  by PUI?  Very  true
*one*  of the   missing features  of the  Xemacs  package  system. The
problem  has been addressed  however the  lack of  manpower so far has
prevented any progress.

The *second* missing feature IMHO is the lack of something like
_alien_ a utility which would allow you to convert regular vanilla
lisp packages into the Xemacs pkg format.

> (in the CVS package CVS), some of them are outdated, mostly because:
> - noone cares for maintaining them (ada mode, ibuffer mode, ...)  -
> some of them come from a sync with the GNU tree and require more
> tweek, which requires manpower)
> I'm not saying this package system is bad, but that it is not always
> up-to-date.

This is true, I myself volunteered to maintain 2 pkg, since I found
them very outdated. Again my point is for a average user it is much
more convenient to use the Xemacs package system to upgrade a lisp
package than it is for the average GNU emacs user.

> This is not entirely true. XEmacs packages are not directly grabbed
> from upstream places. They require some work for being integrated in
> the package tree at xemacs.org.
I am not sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean  to turn a given
lisp package into the Xemacs package format. This is a non trival task
I agree, see   above. On the other  hand,  even given that debian  has
alien an official package usually would not be generated using such a
converter. But then we come to the point turning a program into a some
kind of package system is non trivial,  not for debian not for xemacs.

Besides the pro and cons for emacs and Xemacs my point was that debian
could _save some work_ by taking the Xemacs pkg and not re-write them as
debian   packages,  like the  x-symbol-debian package   which is quite
outdated. And  BTW what you  said about  the Xemacs  package system of
course applies  for the debian system: some  debian  system are out of
syn with the original package, tex4ht is an example which occurs to
me, there might be more.


Reply to: