Re: [Bug: 21.4.18] site-lisp not in load-path
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>>>>> "David" == David Kastrup
<dak(a)gnu.org> writes:
David> I suggest that you either get a clue about AUCTeX by
David> looking at it,
That's exactly what I did. I attempted to build a 11.x package in the
10.x framework.
The 11.5x framework is _utterly_ different from the 11.14 framework
(an autoconf-based installation was introduced), and the 11.8x
framework still is _utterly_ different from that (preview-latex, a
package with LaTeX style files and other niceties was introduced).
Much much more than 11.14 differs from 10.x. So you are completely
out of your depth making statements about the current state of AUCTeX.
Your experience is outdated by years.
I had lots of problems, but getting the files to be found in the
places the package put them was not one of them.
Things have changed a lot since then.
David> what are we to gather from the fact that it has taken
David> years to find a volunteer to do it
There's not that big a difference between AUCTeX 10.x and AUCTeX
11.x that users really care, I guess.
There is enough of a difference between 11.x and 11.x that users
care. ConTeXt is supported, PDFTeX is supported, Source Specials are
supported, syntax highlighting is much improved, preview-latex is
included, macro folding is supported, many more styles are
supported... The list goes on and on.
The difference is much much more than between 10.x and 11.0.
Again: if you can't be bothered to bring your knowledge up to scratch,
you should refrain from parading it.
We got one who did, and he volunteered to do the work.
Get real. Most of the work is done upstream, to the point that we
build a complete XEmacs package. Uwe would not have an inkling of a
chance if we did not support XEmacs upstream. And that still is not
enough to have the stuff moved into XEmacs with suitable swiftness and
quality. The party that can cater for quality control in a reasonable
manner is upstream.
That's the way it's supposed to work.
According to the wishful thinking in the XEmacs policies, yes. And
exactly because it does not work, it becomes reasonable to reconsider
"the way it's supposed to work", namely the policies.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum