Re: Future of XEmacs
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:27:19 +0900, "Stephen J.
Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
Andreas Röhler writes:
> While at GNU Emacs people are implementing new features and fixing
> bugs, at XEmacs considerable energies seem consumed by dealing with
> packages.
There are two real issues with packages. The first is
the $prefix/lib vs. $prefix/share mess, which mostly
affects users rather than developers, but needs fixed
(and is gradually improving in 21.5). This is a
difficult issue because it crosses versions, and 21.5
is not yet ready to replace 21.4 for many users.
I am not sure what you mean.
For me the structure
lisp/auctex
man/auctex
is cumbersome. I would prefer the other way around
auctex/lisp
auctex/man
Etc.
Another point is the numbering system. I think it would be
best to adapt a debian like numbering scheme.
We use the version numbers the authors provide and indicate
our chances by letter suffixes.
Example: auctex (officical version 11.86, Xemacs version
11.85) should be named as
auctex-11.85-a
And any modification we do (but not the official auctex team
should be denoted by the suffix, like
auctex-11.85-b etc etc.
This would also help to know which packages are outdated and
which are not.
Last but not least if we had something like debian's alien,
a pkg which converts a bundle of lisp files into out pkg
system, that would be a great leap forward.
I gather you haven't noticed ELPA yet, either.
BTW how
compares our pkg system with ELPA?
Uwe
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta