Re: To All Package Maintainers & Would-be Maintainers.
|--==> "SJ" == Simon Josefsson <simon(a)josefsson.org> writes:
SJ> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes:
SY> <rant>
>
>I understand your frustration, but that frustration is more XEmacs's
>fault than the external package maintainers',
SJ> I would agree. Would it be difficult to switch from handcrafted make
SJ> files with handcrafter Local.rules makefile includes, into, say,
SJ> autoconf?
This would be something I'd definitely support. As for the difficulty
level, I couldn't say. I'm not familiar with autoconf. But if anyone
wants to have a go at autoconfing the packages, I'll help out as best
I can.
>This is a long-term project, but we need to do something about
better
>dependency handling.
SJ> Packages are a can of worms. You need dependencies, and the longer
SJ> the system are in use, the dependency system gets more and more
SJ> complex.
SJ> Silly Ideas Dept: use .rpm or .deb's? They have sufficiently complex
SJ> dependency systems, and more importantly; OTHER people spend time
SJ> improving the packaging system. It's possible to setup multiple rpm
SJ> databases, and it works even as non-root users.
Not everyone in the world uses Debian or RedCrap. So I think we
either need to stick to tar.gz or come up with our own system. I'm on
the side of the tar.gz.
--
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: 9E7E2820>---|
| XEmacs - It's not just an editor. |
| It's a way of life. |
|------------------------------------<youngs(a)xemacs.org>---|