[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] XEmacs packaging/whatever.
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:06:18 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:

> * Ralf Angeli (2005-06-19) writes:
>> But I haven't seen a "source package" yet.
> Wait, those are in XEmacs' CVS repository as the manual explains as
> well.

Ok, then I am back to square one: I have no idea whatsoever what the
fuzz is supposed to be about.  Anybody that can make head or tails,
given this additional information, about the recent flame feast on the
xemacs-beta list (available via Gmane) is welcome to do so and explain
the results to me.

Why is Stephen Turnbull fighting like a madman to declare the binary
packages as "all-source-included" if they actually distribute separate
source packages?  And what would the difference be?

I mean, I have been trying to get out of the XEmacs developers details
about what makes up an XEmacs package, and was asking about the
purpose of the man directory with the texi sources.

What sense is there in ST putting up a fight to defend a distribution
structure to me that is not what they are actually practising?

I don't get it.  I really don't.  There is really no sense whatsoever
for me to ask questions on xemacs-beta.  Not only do I get into fights
every time, but also the little information I believe to get out of
those would appear to be complete BS of my own imagination.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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