Re: Future AUCTeX distribution
* David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org>:
Hi!
I don't mind about the CVS. But doesn't what's in the
CVS end up
automatically on the package servers (where nothing else is allowed if
I understand correctly) and in sumo tarballs? People using the
package servers will assume getting the latest version, and of course
people using the sumo balls are counting on something reasonably
up-to-date, too.
This depends on my lazyness (and I've been very lazy or side tracked
in recent months). If people want to be up-to-date, they should
either CVS update the sources or use pre-released packages which I try
to build close to changes in the package tree.
> Whether tarballs should be available or not is up to Uwe,
mostly,
> and Norbert.
"available" means being put to package servers and sumo, right? So
the process of feeding them _is_ one using manual intervention. I
really think that the XEmacs board should review its decision not to
accept any packages built in a non-orthodox way, and allow for
case-by-case exceptions. In AUCTeX's case, the additional two-person
pipeline causes additional workload and can't significantly contribute
to package availability and quality.
You know, I personally don't mind removing AUCTeX from the list of
supported official XEmacs packages and instead tell people where to
find it, let's say on our web site.
I don't know about our disk capacities at tux.org, but I would guess,
it's even possible to put the tarball close to the official packages.
Still, someone will have to renew them, so you may still end up with
people using old versions of your software.
norbert.