Simon> On 20 Feb 2001, Steve Youngs wrote: 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? Simon> If I get bored next weekend, I'll take a stab at it. :-) 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. Simon> RPM (and I think also DEB) run on more than linux. They Great, when will this be available on native Windows :-) Today I am able to build all XEmacs packages (without MULE) on my Windows 2000 system! Please don't forget about us native Windows L^Husers! Adrian Simon> aren't much different from a tar-ball with some versioning Simon> and installation instructions. Simon> The problem with sticking to tar.gz or coming up with our Simon> own system is that it will require quite some work to match Simon> the packaging functionality one expects in a package Simon> handling system. Note that I'm not saying that switching Simon> to RPM won't mean work, but in the long run it might be Simon> nice to use some packaging system. -- Adrian Aichner mailto:adrian＠xemacs.org http://www.xemacs.org/