Is Gnus pregnant? Do we need to perform a caesarian section?

|--==> "SJT" == Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org&gt; writes: SJT> Maybe we could move some more of the XEmacs-specific gnus SJT> utilities to either net-utils or a separate gnus-utils SJT> package? Some closer investigation is needed before anyone starts ripping Gnus apart. I'd want to take a look at all the packages that require Gnus to see exactly what their requirement is. There are bound to be some that don't need Gnus at all, like TM[1], and others that can easily be made to not need Gnus. Other considerations are how will it affect Gnus and its maintainability? I realise that I'm the obvious candidate for maintainer of any "gnus-utils" package, but what happens when I'm gone? Gnus is already split between 6 different packages[2]. That makes for a confusing time for some poor unsuspecting would-be Gnus maintainer. [3] SJT> What do you think, Steve Y? Four letters come to mind... P-I-T-A Footnotes: [1] It needs a Gnus _before_ 5.8. [2] Yes, that's right, six packages! Count em... gnus, mail-lib, pgg, sieve, ecrypto, net-utils. [3] I should probably document the idiosyncrasies of maintaining the XEmacs Gnus package. -- |---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---| | XEmacs - The only _______ you'll ever need. | | Fill in the blank, yes, it's THAT good! | |------------------------------&lt;sryoungs(a)bigpond.net.au&gt;---|