[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: CVS is the `released version'

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: CVS is the `released version'
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:47:06 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.91 (gnu/linux)

Thien-Thi Nguyen <address@hidden> writes:

> () Tom Tromey <address@hidden>
> () Sun, 13 May 2007 18:17:15 -0700
>    packages consisting of a single .el file (the most common
>    kind) are very easy to fix up for inclusion.  That's because
>    package.el can usually extract the information it needs for files
>    following the already existing Emacs commenting guidelines.
> does "very easy" include "without modification"?  that would be great.
> someone else mentioned that xemacs' package system imposes policy that
> ends up not being followed.

That would likely have been me.  The problem is rather that the
policies _end_ up being followed, and that means that packages like
AUCTeX (which are built upstream with a much more flexible build
process catering for more than XEmacs alone) are not permitted into
the XEmacs repository, meaning that somebody has to split the finished
package into its parts and write recipes that make the XEmacs package
builder (which exists only in XEmacs CVS) reassemble exactly the same
package with which one started.

Only then may it be distributed.  So the policies _are_ being
followed, with the result that XEmacs distributes only packages that
are severely outdated, with severe bugs that have been fixed for
yours, for the sake of "quality control".  If it looks like an XEmacs
package, behaves like an XEmacs package, smells like an XEmacs
package, it is still not distributed in XEmacs' central package
repository if it has not been assembled in the XEmacs CVS.

We don't want to go the same path of centralized package
repositories.  Really.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]