Re: reftex needs to be upgraded.
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
David Kastrup writes:
> When you tell that to Stephen, he will use any of a variety of
> excuses all of which don't hold water, and all of which he will not
> actually defend when you point out why they don't hold water.
> Instead he'll bring up something different which does not hold
> water either.
My sole contention all along has been that the package tarball is not
the derived work described by the GPL, and that the executable
libraries and data require only common OS utilities and XEmacs to work
on them, in a standard way (cp the data, M-x byte-compile-file for the
libraries). It's that simple.
> That is not the way to address a problem.
There is no problem, except convincing you that you are wrong.
The "shoot the messenger" approach for dealing with problems is really
getting long in the tooth.
Language like "Each package source must contain a number of control
files in the top-level directory." (cf
<URL:http://www.xemacs.org/Documentation/21.5/html/lispref_4.html#SEC23>)
don't make it exactly convincing that those control files are not part
of the package source.
Sentences like "Currently [...] the package sources themselves are
available only by CVS."
<URL:http://www.xemacs.org/Documentation/21.5/html/lispref_4.html#SEC24>
don't make it exactly convincing that the source (the preferred form for
modification) is distributed along with the generated packages.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta