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

Re: Some XEmacs issues and proposals

Holger.Schauer@gmx.de writes:

> On 4290 September 1993, Ralf Angeli wrote:
>> * 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 agree, but if a manual installation of AUCTeX would be the only
> example you have to offer, I still won't take that as a valid
> example.

Ok, so your argument boils down that it would appear that the policy
is good, useful and comprehensible because Debian packages exist under
it, no matter how hard it was for the maintainers to create or
maintain them.

Now you have to ask yourself: for how many Emacs packages are there
Debian versions maintained by upstream, the ideal constellation?  How
is this in comparison with other packaging systems for non-Debian
systems when we are talking about non-trivial Elisp packages?  How up
to date tend the packages to be?

Can you even name a _single_ Debian package in the whole complex of
Emacs and XEmacs that would be maintained upstream?

How many people use the Debian packages?  The XEmacs package is broken
to a degree that it does not even find its own hyperref documentation.
Why don't people file reports?  Don't they use the packages?

If you are asking on the XEmacs developer list, nobody there uses the
Debian packagings or would think of supporting them.  Is that a good

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Reply to: