[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [AUCTeX-devel] XEmacs packaging/whatever.

From: Ralf Angeli
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] XEmacs packaging/whatever.
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:12:00 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

* David Kastrup (2005-06-19) writes:

> Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:
>> * David Kastrup (2005-06-18) writes:
>>> I am tempted to do "a)" without any explanation.  Whether this can
>>> be called source or not we can clarify once we get some position
>>> from the FSF, and it is not different from what XEmacs does,
>>> anyway.  If it is not good for source, we can point this out
>>> afterwards.  If XEmacs calls their packages "binary", so can we.
>> Why do they put source code at all into those packages if they call
>> it "binary"?
> Because the GPL demands that distribution includes either the source,
> or a written warranty to provide it on request.

So why don't they include just the warranty, throw out the useless
sources, and provide packages with full sources including code for
building the binary packages?  What they are doing now fails to be
useful for non-trivial cases of building the software.  If cars where
made in an open source manner, this would be like delivering the car
and its construction blueprints but holding back the work plans for
assembly.  That's not really consequent.  Oh well, I guess I am
preaching to the choir here.

>> Why not just output files in selected formats, like info, PDF, and
>> plain text?
> Because XEmacs has no source packages.  They have _only_ binary
> packages which include the source per XEmacs central's definition.  At
> least that's what I believe I understood from the discussion.
> Since I am not too good at understanding XEmacs developers, I might be
> mistaken about that, but then I'd really wonder what all the noise
> would have been about.

The Lispref manual contains this:

,----[ Lispref: Package Terminology ]
| XEmacs Lisp packages are distributed in two ways.  "Binary packages"
| are used by system administrators and end users.  They are packaged in a
| form convenient for direct installation into an XEmacs package
| hierarchy.  "Source packages" are for developers and include all files
| necessary for rebuilding byte-compiled lisp and creating tarballs for
| distribution or installation.  This is all of the package author's
| source code plus all of the files necessary to build distribution
| tarballs (Unix Tar format files, gzipped for space savings).
| (Occasionally sources that are not relevant to XEmacs are usually
| renamed to `file.upstream'.)

But I haven't seen a "source package" yet.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]