Re: auctex/CHANGES
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>>>>> "David" == David Kastrup
<dak(a)gnu.org> writes:
David> I was not suggesting that you change your packaging scheme.
I know you think that's true, but you're wrong. I've tried importing
a recent AUCTeX (I think it was 11.81). Shoehorning AUCTeX into
XEmacs's package building infrastructure would require substantial
changes in one or the other.
David> AUCTeX has changed substantially since the last time
David> anybody did that,
Since 11.81? If so, I'll give it another try.
No substantial changes since 11.81, I guess. The difference is that
we now have a working "xemacs-package" target in our top Makefile, but
for your purposes it is more like a working example of how to
configure stuff than something you would actually use yourself.
So you essentially say that starting with AUCTeX 11.81, it is not
possible at all to create an XEmacs packaging of AUCTeX. Small wonder
then that Uwe did not succeed in doing so.
But it begs the question what sense there is then in keeping to
distribute a version of AUCTeX in the sumo tarball that is obsolete.
It makes it harder for GNU/Linux distributors to find a good place for
an up-to-date version of AUCTeX, as the sumo tarballs already place an
outdated version into the XEmacs package tree.
I don't know whether load-path order can cater for all problems a
double installation causes, and anyway, on Debian systems the
load-path shadowing problem is much exacerbated since they place
library files and their compiled versions into different places.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum