Re: Bug#648688: emacs23-lucid: package description is unhelpful
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> | Description: The GNU Emacs editor
I won't try to argue with that redundant capitalised definite article
just now, but how come this one gets a plain synopsis when the default
emacs23 gets "The GNU Emacs editor (with GTK+ user interface)"?
> | GNU Emacs is the extensible self-documenting text editor.
> | This package contains a version of Emacs with a Lucid user interface.
>
> But what is a Lucid user interface? Presumably it means "the user
> interface offered by emacs23-lucid", which is still unhelpful.
>
> The changelog.Debian.gz tells me it is "an emacsVER-lucid package for
> those who still want the non-GTK+ version" --- that is, the UI
>
> (1) looks like old emacs
> (2) does not use GTK+
>
> --- which seem like useful data for a person deciding whether to
> install it.
>
> The reader is also curious about the relationship, if any, to Lucid,
> Inc.
Lucid, Inc's "Lucid Emacs" was the fork that became XEmacs. So it
would seem that emacs23-lucid is the version of GNU Emacs designed to
look like nineties versions of XEmacs? See
http://www.gnu.org/s/libtool/manual/emacs/Lucid-Resources.html#Lucid-Resources
Installing them and comparing (on Squeeze) I see that emacs23's splash
screen says "This is GNU EMacs 23.2.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+
Version 2.20.1)" while emacs23-lucid's has "(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, X
toolkit, Xaw3d scroll bars)". It's older and greyer-looking than the
GTK+ version, but nowhere near as grey as xemacs21...
Maybe the description could be something like:
Description: The GNU Emacs editor (non-GTK+ GUI)
GNU Emacs is the extensible self-documenting text editor. This package
contains a version of Emacs with a graphical user interface based on
the old XEmacs-style Lucid widget set.
(It's a good thing JWZ didn't fork a version of Lynx as well, or
Ubuntu 10.04 "Lucid Lynx" users would have been really confused.)
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: