Re: auctex/CHANGES
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>>>>> "David" == David Kastrup
<dak(a)gnu.org> writes:
David> It would probably make sense to take a look at it and model
David> the procedure how the XEmacs team chooses to organize its
David> CVS packaging from there.
We've been through this before, and the situation has not changed.
The XEmacs package system has two purposes: (1) to provide a
convenient installer for users, and (2) to provide a consistent,
modular framework for administration, development, and quality
assurance of packages (as opposed to the packaged code itself, which
can be, and often is developed and maintained outside of the package
system).
The strategy you propose is not compatible with (2).
I think you misunderstand me here, and perhaps my wording has not been
chosen well. I meant
It would probably make sense to take a look at it and model the
procedure how the XEmacs team chooses to organize the CVS
packaging of AUCTeX from there.
I was not suggesting that you change your packaging scheme. Instead I
was suggesting that somebody with a firm grip on the packaging scheme
and its possibilities reintegrated AUCTeX from scratch, more or less.
AUCTeX has changed substantially since the last time anybody did that,
and if somebody reseated its packaging from scratch, it might make
life easier for the package integrator in future. AUCTeX in XEmacs
has already fallen behind more than a year and is missing out
important functionality. If somebody did the one-term effort of
refitting it to the package structure of XEmacs, it might make
updating it manageable for its maintainer again.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum