Re: [comp.emacs.xemacs] AUCTeX 11.84 released
Mats Lidell writes:
The build procedure designed by the AUCTeX team is quite likely
perfect for its job, and built against the right version of the SUMO
package (there is an integration issue here right!?) it will be fine,
but that doesn't make me understand a bit what is the problem in
making it build within the XEmacs Package Tree.
The XEmacs package system does not support external build procedures.
That's all there is to it. I don't like it, but I don't have the time
or skills to fix it.
The package system contains a set of Makefiles which control compiling
the Lisp files in a "clean" environment, building documentation,
installing either to the ultimate destination or to the equivalent of
a DESTDIR, and bundling up such an installation in a tarball. There
is no need for invoking a separate build procedure.
David> It is an illusion to imagine that taking the identical
files
David> from the source tarball instead of AUCTeX's binary XEmacs
David> package is somehow going to make a legal difference: the
David> copyrightable content is the same.
Nobody ever claimed that there was a legal difference. Simply that
David's claims about what must be distributed in a derivative of
AUCTeX are invalid.
David> In either case, XEmacs central decides that it needs not
David> distribute the build infrastructure (whether from AUCTeX or
David> from XEmacs) along with the binary package in order to
David> comply with the GPL.
I wasn't aware that there are legal issues here. Please explain?
David's claim is that to comply with the GPL, we must distribute the
packaging system with every package, citing the part of the GPL that
says "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable."
I disagree with David's claim. I believe that the installed package
is a perfectly good source package as defined by the GPL. It is not
the original package, of course; it is a derivative. The GPL
explicitly permits making derivatives. That's so even if they lack
some of the convenience, or even the functionality, of the original.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta