Rodney Sparapani writes: Once again, that's *your* opinion, clearly valid for you as a user, and it is valid for you to weight that heavily in deciding that maintaining an XEmacs package is not a good use of your ESS time. But my experience as an XEmacs maintainer is that users are pleased with the existence of the package system, generally satisfied with the quality, and that as a lurker on the emacs-devel list I see requests for a package system come up time and again, despite a long series of "we don't need no steenkin' packages" responses from RMS. I can't "prove" it, but I believe the package system is a big value-added for XEmacs. Of course we do! Your point about the redundancy of multiple package systems is well-taken. I just ask that you not unnecessarily discourage others from doing it. *Do* ask people who can do work you value to do that work rather than maintain an XEmacs package. That's part of what maintainers are for, knowing what needs doing most. But if somebody really thinks they are best suited for maintaining an XEmacs package, what's the harm? :-) _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta