[AUCTeX-devel] Re: XEmacs and ZUCTeX Problems

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Wing <address@hidden> writes:

    Ben> David Kastrup wrote:

    >> If XEmacs central prefers a modus of operation which tends to
    >> lead to outdated packages not maintained by the core package
    >> authors, then we probably should respect that choice.

People who want the up-to-date package maintained by the core authors
can get that from the AUCTeX project directly.  People who want a
package that conforms to XEmacs policy can get it from us.

Experience will show which works better, and for which users.  It's a
shame that in the meantime AUCTeX will get bug reports pertaining to
our distribution which varies from theirs, but I don't see any way to
avoid that and satisfy our goals for our package distribution.

    Ben> david, it might help if you expunge concepts such as "XEmacs
    Ben> central" from your brain, since they don't exist.  we work by
    Ben> consensus; there is no rms here who has global final say.

Please, Ben, there is too an XEmacs Central (the review board), and if
it doesn't achieve consensus, things don't change (at least, not in a
coherent way).  This is especially relevant to the package system.

The conflict between our standard tools for package distribution and
various idiosyncratic hacks used by upstream projects is a long
standing problem.  It's why we don't have an Emacsspeak package, it's
why the JDE people don't maintain our JDE package, and it's why AUCTeX
lags so badly against upstream.

-- 
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.