Re: xemacs vs emacs

Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane(a)imap.cc&gt; writes: Well, 22.2 has already been released. 22.3 does not sound like being all too far off, either. Oh puleeze! The _only_ party that is _objecting_ to AUCTeX trying to support XEmacs are the XEmacs core team. They don't accept our package in distribution. They demand that we have to scrap our own package build and directory structure and adapt the XEmacs style of installing packages (never mind that this is much less versatile) and that we become active XEmacs developers with CVS access to the package archive and do all of the integration work into the XEmacs package system in order to be _allowed_ to distribute AUCTeX with XEmacs. I am not interested in doing all that extra work in order to artificially arrive at the status quo we already have, a working XEmacs package. I've repeatedly given plenty of help and advice to anybody who believed this to be a worthwhile task. So I am guilty of not investing every amount of work that the XEmacs cabal is _demanding_ so that they don't need to adapt their "quality control" policies to reality. And if I don't do all that work they want done from me in order to save themselves having to either think or code, they will badmouth me on the developer list and berate me for my "unwillingness to support" XEmacs or similar idiocies and clamor over my "objections". I repeat: the only objections about XEmacs support I ever made were to AUCTeX developers who wanted to drop XEmacs support. At some point of time I might give in and no longer object against this stupid uphill battle. Not yet. Sure: I don't volunteer my time to spend as the XEmacs team feels fit to demand. I am not interested in XEmacs myself. I will help people get off the ground where I can, those who _are_ interested in XEmacs and willing to support it with more than just flaming. Few remain seemingly. But that's not my problem. As long as there is anybody willing to do the work, he gets all what can reasonably be expected from me and then some. I have invested a lot of developer time for XEmacs. I have myself alone spent at least three man-months for preview-latex integration into XEmacs, and at least a month for getting the build structure and internal package structure for XEmacs right. What I get in return is ostracization of the package we produce and tirades on the XEmacs list what a bad person I am for objecting to supporting XEmacs and similar crap. I don't think I ever encountered _any_ project where I received so much bad vibration and abuse and obstruction at every turn for so much invested work. We are literally supporting AUCTeX on XEmacs in opposition and in spite of the XEmacs team rather than because of or with it. And people just refuse to get it into their heads that I am not the one blocking the inclusion of the existing AUCTeX package for XEmacs into the package system. We went all the nine yards to support XEmacs. But somebody will have to go all the nine yards again, in the manner prescribed by the XEmacs ruling council in order to arrive at _exactly_ the same place. This is silly, but that is not my problem. I won't stop anybody else from doing that, and he gets my advice and goodwill and help. I am not myself doing the same work in the "superior" XEmacs way (that has not for years found somebody able to actually produce a working XEmacs package). But I am also not standing in anybody else's way. -- 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