Re: about obsolete packages

René Kyllingstad writes: And if I commit something to core that breaks it, what do you suggest? If it's updated and is dead-on-arrival because of changes to 21.5 that the AUCTeX team (which last I heard had *zero* regular users of XEmacs in its core group) isn't up to date on, what do you suggest? Where should those bug reports go? What do we do with those packages while waiting for a fix? I *definitely* don't think such packages should go into the SUMOs. As for "needing special configuration," IMO the package manager has long been deficient in that respect; it should be improved to offer all the versions of a package that it knows about. Now, there are well-known problems that arise with 3rd-party Emacs Lisp that is not built in a "clean" environment. The XEmacs package system has been very successful in forestalling most of those (thanks in part to Mats Lidell's "smoke test", M-x all-hail-mats RET), without the delays involved in waiting for a core release tested with all the packages. I don't want to give that up. OTOH, there are plenty of packages that don't need "helium atmosphere builds" to work acceptably well; AUCTeX is evidently one. x-symbol is another. The package manager ought to support convenient installation and removal of a "contrib" or "as-is" category of binary packages that *we* don't care if they break or not (but mostly they don't ;-). I think that would be a better place to direct core developer effort than dealing directly with AUCTeX (that currently doesn't build in our "clean" environment). _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta