Re: problems with compiling auctex

On 13 Nov 2001, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Er, this may well be a stupid suggestion, but have you considered shipping an irregularly updated 'xemacs-base' package[1] in the 'etc' directory of the binary? That way the startup procedure could verify the existence of the package on disk and, if it's not there, ask the user if they wanted to install it? Something subtle like: "you don't seem to have the xemacs-base package installed. This will cause XEmacs to fail horribly. Should I install a version of this package?" Then, suggest to the user that they probable want to go and upgrade their packages from the net -- after they already have a completely working XEmacs? This would retain the advantage of having the xemacs-base package updated when bugs were fixed, but would still ship a fully working[2] XEmacs to users, even if they didn't grab the SUMO. Daniel Footnotes: [1] Possibly also EFS and whatever else is needed for net update of packages to work. [2] Where "working" is defined as "fully bootstrapped" -- Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong. -- David Fasold