Re: Some XEmacs issues and proposals
* Holger Schauer (2005-05-31) writes:
> I wear glasses, but I'm not blind. Referring on a Debian list to a manual
> installation of a package that Debian distributes as a Debian package is
> a red herring.
I don't consider it uncommon that people have software installed
manually which is also available via the package system. Reasons
could be special build options or the need for other versions of the
software.
> I'm sorry to say that this specific reference to AUCTeX
> triggered an impression that this is just another "poor AUCTeX (upstream)
> maintainers suffer from XEmacs" complaint that I've seen lately some.
Of course I use AUCTeX as a reference; because I know most about it
and I am most concerned about it. And regarding the complaints about
XEmacs; well, those are the usual problems you get when writing
software which has to be compatible with both GNU Emacs and XEmacs.
No doubt I would be yelling at GNU Emacs if XEmacs would be my
preferred flavor and I would have to make the stuff coded for XEmacs
compatible with GNU Emacs. But from my point of view there would be
less yelling involved because either the stuff coded for XEmacs would
mostly work on GNU Emacs due to the required editor features already
being in place or I would give up before actually finishing an AUCTeX
feature because it would be too hard to implement in XEmacs. The
folding functionality of AUCTeX would probably not exist if XEmacs was
my editor of choice.
Anyway, we are not talking about problems in XEmacs but about problems
with its configuration imposed by the Debian Emacs policy. And it's
not like only the AUCTeX maintainers have noticed problems with it.
Also XEmacs upstream is not very fond of the policy. At least Stephen
expressed some of his views (also what he thinks about putting
/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp into XEmacs' load-path) in
<URL:http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.xemacs.beta/19471>.
--
Ralf
Reply to: