Fwd: sign off on XEmacs 21.5
dak at gnu.org
Wed Jul 9 19:07:09 EDT 2008
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
> > "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:
> > > The *important* technical difference is that it is not
> > > built as an XEmacs package in the context of other XEmacs packages.
> > That is the way you _build_ your packages, not the way you
> > distribute them. For the distribution, it does not matter how the
> > package was built.
> I'm sorry, David, but you are wrong on this.
I beg to differ.
> But in the case of the so-called "XEmacs package" provided by the
> AUCTeX project, that will fail *by design*, since by design your build
> process ignores the XEmacs package infrastructure.
Tell that to the people that use this package.
> > I have no support from XEmacs insiders, period.
> Of course you do.
No XEmacs insider has been working on the AUCTeX code for years (the
last was Nix' work on preview-latex). Soliciting information from the
developer list has basically had the charm of pulling teeth. It always
goes about with lectures about how you are stupid not to understand what
this is about, and nobody really needs this anyway and so on. Bug
reports mostly go ignored. Ralf has even only had moderate success when
he provided complete patches.
> You're basically saying that in comparison to Emacs, a comparison
> you've made many times. Well, that comparison is inherently unfair.
No, I am saying that in comparison to _any_ project I have participated
in. There is no other project with a similar amount of apathy,
hostility and contraproductive communication and behavior that I have
encountered yet. In particular not when compared with the amount of
work I have invested to support it.
And I don't see what is "inherently unfair" about comparisons, anyway.
> I think we'd be better off cooperating on the basis of not trying to
> change the other project's internal policies, but that's just me, I
Your policies don't get the work done. Your idea of "cooperation" is
"you do all the work according to our cast into stone policies, even if
that means double the work or and does not jibe with the necessities for
Emacs. We are not interested in what problems that causes". I am not
really enthusiastic about that kind of "cooperation". "cooperation" for
me would mean that you get reasonable help and interaction you need in
order to support a version of AUCTeX for XEmacs. Not that we get
occasionally thrown some scraps of information after begging long
If the AUCTeX developers cease to invest more time of themselves into
actively supporting XEmacs, that does not mean that this closes the road
to cooperation. In contrast, it opens it. Because the current
situation where the AUCTeX developers have to do everything and
occasionally get abused for not doing it properly is _not_ what I call
cooperation. If you are interested in cooperation, it should be a
welcome change when AUCTeX upstream ceases to do any XEmacs-related
changes, coding, packages and policies.
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
More information about the XEmacs-Beta