Rodney Sparapani writes:
But, the convenience is a little over-rated. How hard is it really
to unpack a generic (rather than an xemacs specific) tarball into
site-packages? I know, that does nothing for the dependencies...
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
But, does anyone else see where I'm coming from?
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