Uwe Brauer <address@hidden> writes:
"David" == David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
Hello David,
> Directed to both XEmacs and AUCTeX developer lists.
> It has become clear in the last few years that the efforts of
> AUCTeX developers to support XEmacs are basically a waste of time.
Well, first of all I have to apologize for not having been able to
submit the desired patch in due time. However thanks to Mats Lidell we
have an almost working solution (save a patch which should be applied to
XEmacs.rules). It is however not clear right now, whether this patch
will be accepted or another solution should be found. In any case I will
submit that patch tomorrow, (my workload has been high in the past
months) and hopefully within a couple of days we will have a working
solution. Once that is settled further synchronization should be easy
(given that the Installation process will not be changed again).
> Am I overlooking something?
So given that we will have a working solution soon I would like to ask
you, not to stop the support you have given so far to XEmacs.
Unless I misunderstand, the patch that is going to be checked into the
XEmacs package system does not make any use of the build infrastructure
for XEmacs that the AUCTeX upstream has created, but rather tries to
incrementally change the previously existing package framework (which is
the main reason that the workload for you has been quite difficult if I
understand correctly).
So I don't see that upstream dropping all support for building XEmacs
packages should affect your work. Unless I misunderstand the situation,
our XEmacs package support never has been used in the XEmacs package
system, anyway.
Am I overlooking something?