9:19 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi People!
Following the recent discussion on this list about "unofficial"
packages I have set up a new directory hierarchy in the packages CVS
module.
The new hierarchy has this format:
.../packages/unsupported/$developer-name/$package-name
The idea is to have a place for people to keep XEmacs packages that,
for one reason or another, aren't ready for distribution with the
mainline packages.
We, (The XEmacs Development Team), will not offer any user support for
these packages. Neither will we recommend their use. All we are
doing is offering a place for developers to store their work.
Although I don't wish to put any restrictions or requirements on these
packages, I must ask that they all:
(a) Install to .../site-packages/
(b) Don't have a '_pkg.el' file because it will interfere with
PUI and the official packages.
(c) Don't use a 'package-index' file for installation, for the
same reason as (b)
Points (b) and (c) should only be a temporary thing, but PUI needs to
be enhanced first.[1]
If you'd like to have your own directory under 'unsupported' just drop
me a line and I'll set it up for you. If you don't already have
commit access to XEmacs CVS you'll need to send me your public SSH key
(version 1 only) and your preferences for a user name (for CVS commit
logging purposes).
Footnotes:
[1] This is something that I intend to work on.
- --
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: 10D5C9C5>---|
| XEmacs - It's not just an editor. |
| It's a way of life. |
|------------------------------------<youngs(a)xemacs.org>---|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: The XEmacs Development Team.
iD8DBQE9BGECjNKQaxDVycURAlW4AJ9M0PF8Eh9A0nGtj6qm0BPODG7ljgCZAfj2
1+v2wb+8ubcw7r2802o0yPM=
=cH5C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
9:45 a.m.
Steve Youngs wrote:
Hi People!
Following the recent discussion on this list about "unofficial"
packages I have set up a new directory hierarchy in the packages CVS
module.
The new hierarchy has this format:
.../packages/unsupported/$developer-name/$package-name
The idea is to have a place for people to keep XEmacs packages that,
for one reason or another, aren't ready for distribution with the
mainline packages.
This gives me an idea: wouldn't it be a nice place to put official
packages, but in beta test, for people to try them before incorporation into
the main package hierarchy ?
--
Didier Verna, didier(a)lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (1) 53 14 59 47
94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France Fax.+33 (1) 53 14 59 22 didier(a)xemacs.org
3:58 a.m.
|--==> "drv" == Didier Verna <didier(a)xemacs.org> writes:
drv> Steve Youngs wrote:
>.../packages/unsupported/$developer-name/$package-name
drv> This gives me an idea: wouldn't it be a nice place to put
drv> official packages, but in beta test, for people to try them
drv> before incorporation into the main package hierarchy ?
Possibly, but my intention was that this directory would be used for
packages that we don't (yet) distribute. I'd really like to keep the
unsupported and official packages separate.
Maybe I could create a .../packages/beta/$package-name hierarchy. But
I don't like that idea because:
(a) It would conceivably double the size of the packages
repository (currently > 65Mb uncompiled, > 100Mb
compiled).
(b) I can envisage all kinds of problems with the "commit to
beta -> upgrade to stable -> release to pre-release ->
release" process.
I'm not suggesting that we can't have stable/unstable package
repositories. It's just that it will be reasonably tricky to
maintain them.
--
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: 10D5C9C5>---|
| XEmacs - It's not just an editor. |
| It's a way of life. |
|------------------------------------<youngs(a)xemacs.org>---|
11:05 a.m.
Steve Youngs <youngs(a)xemacs.org> writes:
The new hierarchy has this format:
.../packages/unsupported/$developer-name/$package-name
Thanks, Steve!
We, (The XEmacs Development Team), will not offer any user support
for
these packages. Neither will we recommend their use. All we are
doing is offering a place for developers to store their work.
This seems ideal. I don't want to put any workload on the XEmacs
Development Team for these things. (What you have already done is
more than enough.)
Although I don't wish to put any restrictions or requirements on
these
packages, I must ask that they all:
Of course; I'll fix them.
3:59 a.m.
|--==> "SJ" == Simon Josefsson <jas(a)extundo.com> writes:
SJ> Steve Youngs <youngs(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>The new hierarchy has this format:
>
>.../packages/unsupported/$developer-name/$package-name
SJ> Thanks, Steve!
You're very welcome.
--
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: 10D5C9C5>---|
| XEmacs - It's not just an editor. |
| It's a way of life. |
|------------------------------------<youngs(a)xemacs.org>---|
1 p.m.
|--==> "SY" == Steve Youngs <youngs(a)xemacs.org> writes:
SY> Following the recent discussion on this list about "unofficial"
SY> packages I have set up a new directory hierarchy in the packages CVS
SY> module.
Oops, this should probably have gone to -design. I'll post it there
too.
--
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: 10D5C9C5>---|
| XEmacs - It's not just an editor. |
| It's a way of life. |
|------------------------------------<youngs(a)xemacs.org>---|
7:20 p.m.
On Mon, 2002-06-10 at 11:19, Steve Youngs wrote:
Following the recent discussion on this list about
"unofficial"
packages I have set up a new directory hierarchy in the packages CVS
module.
Thanks, this is very nice!
Although I don't wish to put any restrictions or requirements on
these
packages, I must ask that they all:
(a) Install to .../site-packages/
(b) Don't have a '_pkg.el' file because it will interfere with
PUI and the official packages.
(c) Don't use a 'package-index' file for installation, for the
same reason as (b)
Points (b) and (c) should only be a temporary thing, but PUI needs to
be enhanced first.[1]
Hmm, I set up my dir in a pretty ugly way, see README and INSTALL in
unsupported/scop/ [1], mainly because I really wanted to take full
advantage of the packages build stuff. But my setup still creates the
_pkg.el files. Is there a way to skip it using the official packages
build system?
[1]
<http://cvs.xemacs.org/viewcvs.cgi/XEmacs/packages/unsupported/scop/>
--
Ville Skyttä
ville.skytta at xemacs.org
4:20 p.m.
|--==> "VS" == Ville Skytt <Ville> writes:
VS> Hmm, I set up my dir in a pretty ugly way, see README and INSTALL in
VS> unsupported/scop/ [1], mainly because I really wanted to take full
VS> advantage of the packages build stuff. But my setup still creates the
VS> _pkg.el files. Is there a way to skip it using the official packages
VS> build system?
What I can do is put copies of the build tools that are in ./packages/
into ./packages/unsupported/. And then slightly modify them so
_pkg.el files aren't built. It should be in CVS not long after you
read this.
The added advantage to this is that your Makefiles can be more or less
identical to the "official" ones (you won't need the extra "../"
for
including XEmacs.rules).
Actually, speaking of Makefiles, could you please set $(CATEGORY) to
"unsupported". I'm going to use that field as part of the means for
XEmacs to determine how to deal with each type of package.
--
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: 10D5C9C5>---|
| XEmacs - It's not just an editor. |
| It's a way of life. |
|------------------------------------<youngs(a)xemacs.org>---|
7:31 a.m.
On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 18:20, Steve Youngs wrote:
VS> Hmm, I set up my dir in a pretty ugly way, see README and
INSTALL in
VS> unsupported/scop/ [1], mainly because I really wanted to take full
VS> advantage of the packages build stuff. But my setup still creates the
VS> _pkg.el files. Is there a way to skip it using the official packages
VS> build system?
What I can do is put copies of the build tools that are in ./packages/
into ./packages/unsupported/. And then slightly modify them so
_pkg.el files aren't built. It should be in CVS not long after you
read this.
Thanks! That would be nice.
Actually, speaking of Makefiles, could you please set $(CATEGORY) to
"unsupported". I'm going to use that field as part of the means for
XEmacs to determine how to deal with each type of package.
Done. What about package-info.in (distribution)? "unsupported"?
--
Ville Skyttä
ville.skytta at iki.fi
9:20 a.m.
|--==> "VS" == Ville Skytt <Ville> writes:
VS> On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 18:20, Steve Youngs wrote:
VS> Thanks! That would be nice.
You're welcome.
>Actually, speaking of Makefiles, could you please set $(CATEGORY)
to
>"unsupported". I'm going to use that field as part of the means for
>XEmacs to determine how to deal with each type of package.
VS> Done. What about package-info.in (distribution)? "unsupported"?
Yeah, that sounds like the right thing to put there.
--
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: 10D5C9C5>---|
| XEmacs - It's not just an editor. |
| It's a way of life. |
|------------------------------------<youngs(a)xemacs.org>---|
8197
days inactive
8201
days old
9 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Didier Verna -
Simon Josefsson -
Steve Youngs -
Ville Skyttä -
Ville Skyttä