Re: package site information more dynamically updateable

Ben> yes, we should put xemacs-base into core. I disagree. That will just bite us later with shadows and backward-and-forward incompatibility. We'd be much better off defining reasonable interfaces where we can and moving that stuff _out_ of core, while providing a facility for installing minimal packages or SUMOs from the distribution tarball. Things like URL fetching etc are perfect candidates, since they're basically defined by RFCs. On the other hand, our specific UI features are candidates for moving back into core (I'm thinking specifically of annotations and fields), if we can't standardize the APIs well enough to make them "public stable". I know having stuff in packages is annoying to you, Ben, but I believe that the prospect of working with that big ball of mud we call "core" is a prohibitive deterrent to a lot of people who might otherwise contribute an occasional fix. Ben> yes, we should switch to an http package installation Ben> system. (really really really; http is *much* more reliable Ben> than ftp these days and works through firewalls consistently) This would be a lot easier on the users if package-get were itself in a package. -- School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.