RE: ess package status?

I don't want to get in a long debate here, but ... They are technically unnecessary since they are not necessary. However, they are convenient which is why people like them. I like them to, but if only there was a standard format so that we don't have to create them for each different platform. Maybe there is something going on with respect to standardization and/or automation that I don't know about. configure is such a mess so I guess that's out. But, the convenience is a little over-rated. How hard is it really to unpack a generic (rather than an xemacs specific) tarball into site-packages? I know, that does nothing for the dependencies... But, does anyone else see where I'm coming from? If it's just me, I'll shut up. Thanks. The Fonz gives Richie motorcycle riding advice Fonzie: Always wear a helmet, but never smile Richie: Why not? Fonzie: You get bugs in your teeth -----Original Message----- From: Stephen J. Turnbull [mailto:stephen＠xemacs.org] Sent: Wed 1/24/2007 2:08 AM To: Rodney Sparapani Cc: xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org Subject: Re: ess package status? Rodney Sparapani writes: It seems that the vast majority of users disagree with you. Packaging systems are extremely popular among users of all levels of skill. _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta