Re: Future AUCTeX distribution
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>>>>> "David" == David Kastrup
<dak(a)gnu.org> writes:
David> I think that in interest of coherence and of the users, we
David> should just bite the bullet and put the XEmacs package up
David> for download ourselves,
This is what I recommend (and have always recommended). This is what
VM does.
David> The question is what to do with the version in the XEmacs
David> package tree and available from its servers.
The version in the package tree should stay there. Anybody who gets
it from our CVS should know what they're doing (that's a normative
statement, not informative).
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.
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.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum