Fwd: sign off on XEmacs 21.5
Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Mon Jul 7 04:09:02 EDT 2008
David Kastrup writes:
> The only technical difference to an XEmacs package is that it is not
> distributed as one. The form is identical.
Um, wrong. The *important* technical difference is that it is not
built as an XEmacs package in the context of other XEmacs packages.
That's the way package systems work. You know that, David.
As for the rest of your post, we've been over that many times before.
My position is that you're wrong about the value of our policies, and
that you have no support from XEmacs insiders that I can see for your
very vague proposals about the policies themselves, and none for the
proposal that we distribute a third-party tarball.
The door is open; while Uwe is the official maintainer of the XEmacs
package, I doubt you'd get any opposition if you asked for the
position, committing to working according to the rules until you
succeed in getting them changed. As an active insider (even
restricted to work on AUCTeX), you probably would succeed, too, at
least if you put your weight behind one of the several proposals
floated over the years for changing or augmenting the package system.
I understand that you consider that an extremely unattractive offer,
but that's the standard one for a volunteer open source project, as
you well know.
More information about the XEmacs-Beta