package site information more dynamically updateable
Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Mon Oct 24 04:48:00 EDT 2005
>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Wing <ben at xemacs.org> writes:
Ben> yes, we should put xemacs-base into core.
I disagree. That will just bite us later with shadows and
backward-and-forward incompatibility. We'd be much better off
defining reasonable interfaces where we can and moving that stuff
_out_ of core, while providing a facility for installing minimal
packages or SUMOs from the distribution tarball. Things like URL
fetching etc are perfect candidates, since they're basically defined
On the other hand, our specific UI features are candidates for moving
back into core (I'm thinking specifically of annotations and fields),
if we can't standardize the APIs well enough to make them "public
I know having stuff in packages is annoying to you, Ben, but I believe
that the prospect of working with that big ball of mud we call "core"
is a prohibitive deterrent to a lot of people who might otherwise
contribute an occasional fix.
Ben> yes, we should switch to an http package installation
Ben> system. (really really really; http is *much* more reliable
Ben> than ftp these days and works through firewalls consistently)
This would be a lot easier on the users if package-get were itself in
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.
More information about the XEmacs-Beta