Re: debian-0.90: a few comments
Sunando Sen <sens@acf2.NYU.EDU> writes:
> [...] I just don't want to download and reinstall everything when
> only a few things have changed.
It is not possible to upgrade from 0.90 to 0.91. I think Ian Murdock
made this clear as soon as the decision to change from absolute to
relative paths in the *.deb (gzipped cpio) files was made.
Summary: reinstall everything. :(
Advice: wait for 0.92. :)
> 3. The copy of vi (or rather elvis) is buggy. It corrupts the
> screen once I suspended it, and I couldn't return to it with `fg' at
> all. This is only a guess, but I suspect this comes from the buggy
> copy of elvis-1.17 in sunsite.unc.edu. The patches used by the
> author looked wrong to me, and anyway it had the same symptom as
> debian's elvis. I do have a fixed copy of elvis.
A fix for this would be great. This bug is really annoying.
> 5. I was surprised to find twm missing, but that is only a minor
I would personally like to see tvtwm provided, but I've managed quite
well with fvwm so far. Maybe I can provide tvtwm once time allows.
I suggest that you consider putting a twm package together for Debian.
There is no reason why you couldn't, is there?
> 6. The emacs could also do with a little better packaging. I suggest
> including Robert Sander's console.el, which is setup for the Linux
> console terminal. I have a copy of console.el and a defaults.el with
> user-friendly keybindings. The default us.map that comes with the
> kernel is not complete enough for emacs. For example, typical emacs
> keystrokes like `Ctrl-@' or `Alt-%' are not defined (in general, no
> Ctrl-Shift or Alt-Shift combinations are defined). I also have a copy
> us.map of that takes care of these that I would like to contribute.
Could you please mail any Emacs stuff to me so I can get it into the
next Emacs release along with the other changes I've made?
If you could clarify what you mean by "a little better packaging", I
would appreciate it as well. I selfishly want to make Debian's Emacs
implementation as good as possible since I seem to spend 90% of my
time in it.
> 8. Is anybody working on making a TeX distribution? I have built the
> latest web2c 6.0 stuff without any problem. I also could contribute
> some slightly enhanced lpd filters and printcaps for laserjets.
Supposedly, someone is. I think we have to get a vanilla TeX into the
distribution NOW and worry about enhancements later. It has already
taken far too long.
I wonder if Ian Murdock would be willing to include the first
completely working TeX package that showed up at his door.
Daniel Quinlan <firstname.lastname@example.org>