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

Re: Some XEmacs issues and proposals

* Holger Schauer (2005-06-01) writes:

> On 4290 September 1993, Ralf Angeli wrote:
>> 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. E.g., I use beta/cvs versions of (X)Emacs myself and the
> Debian packages were more than once a cause of conflicts just like in
> your AUCTeX case. But that doesn't imply there's something wrong with
> the Debian packages, it's the duplicate installation that's causing
> the trouble. Exactly like in your AUCTeX example and I'm quite sorry
> to say that I think if your begging for trouble (by a duplicate
> installation of files) you're rightfully on your own in getting out of
> it afterwards, IMHO. 

How often do I have to repeat this?  The installation is intended for
GNU Emacs, not XEmacs.  Those files are installed into a directory
XEmacs has no business looking into.  It would be a different story if
we were talking about site-packages versus xemacs-packages.  But we
are not.

> Of course, that is not to say that it would be better if Elisp files
> for different versions of Emacs would play along nicely.
> Unfortunately, the world is not always as we would like to have
> it. Breaking backwards compatibility to avoid a problem that has been
> there and solved for years is just not my favourite way of dealing with
> wishful thinking.

Compatibility to what?  I haven't seen any XEmacs document suggesting
.../share/emacs/site-lisp as a location for XEmacs files.


Reply to: