Re: Fwd: sign off on XEmacs 21.5

David Kastrup writes: Um, wrong. The *important* technical difference is that it is not built as an XEmacs package in the context of other XEmacs packages. That's the way package systems work. You know that, David. As for the rest of your post, we've been over that many times before. My position is that you're wrong about the value of our policies, and that you have no support from XEmacs insiders that I can see for your very vague proposals about the policies themselves, and none for the proposal that we distribute a third-party tarball. The door is open; while Uwe is the official maintainer of the XEmacs package, I doubt you'd get any opposition if you asked for the position, committing to working according to the rules until you succeed in getting them changed. As an active insider (even restricted to work on AUCTeX), you probably would succeed, too, at least if you put your weight behind one of the several proposals floated over the years for changing or augmenting the package system. I understand that you consider that an extremely unattractive offer, but that's the standard one for a volunteer open source project, as you well know. _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta