[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: [comp.emacs.xemacs] AUCTeX 11.84 released

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: [comp.emacs.xemacs] AUCTeX 11.84 released
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:29:31 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Uwe Brauer <address@hidden> writes:

>>>>>> " " == Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:
>     > Since the version distributed with the XEmacs package
>     > collection is unsupported upstream, one could conclude that
>     > the XEmacs project is taking care of support for that version.
>     > In that case you should at least add a disclaimer of the
>     > different support address and change the bug reporting
>     > address.
> Concerning the recent discussion on the auctex and the XEmacs-beta
> list with respect to the outdated XEmacs Auctex package I see the
> following possibilities.
>     -  I try again to synchronise (upgrade) but this time
>        successfully. Everybody will be happy (relived whatever) I
>        presume.

It would remove quite a bit of tension.  It does not address the
sidetrack of the thread where I have been called a bully, crybaby,
somebody threatening with legal action (even though I pointed out
repeatedly that I am not the copyright holder of AUCTeX) and whatever
else, since that is not concerned with AUCTeX in particular but rather
the general structure of XEmacs packages.

If there was _any_ interest in getting my concerns about that
addressed, I could offer to phrase a request to the copyright clerk at
the FSF and have it double-checked by Stephen before sending it off,
or Stephen could do this himself.  I don't think that this offer could
possibly be considered a threat unless parties here are not as utterly
convinced of my lunacy as they put it, since it would place the
question out of my and into competent hands.

Whatever.  That's a different problem (or non-problem, as people would
have it).

With regard to the state of AUCTeX redistribution by XEmacs, a
successful upgrade certainly be the best option for now.  It is to be
hoped, however, that future synchs would work better.

>     -  However since this seems not that simple (at least not for me
>     nor for Stephen) I could try to upgrade but with preview-latex
>     disabled. I am not sure that it would me much easier but it
>     might and since 11.52 does not include preview-latex neither
>     such a version would present at least some improvement. Would
>     such a synchronisation be all right with the auctex team?

Actually not: preview-latex is not distributed separately anymore, so
as opposed to the old 11.55, people would no longer have the option to
install manually what the XEmacs package system omitted.

>     -  I fail again, but we change all the relevant bug address etc,
>        such that the auctex team will not be bothered by bug reports
>        of outdated packages. Would that be be all right with the
>        auctex team?

Speaking for myself personally, I have to say no: the interest of the
AUCTeX team is still rather with helping rather than abandoning XEmacs
users.  Of course, it is annoying to get reports for ancient packages,
but the solution is telling people to upgrade, not leaving them in the

>     -  Auctex could be removed, but frankly even having an outdated
>        auctex package *preinstalled* is a value in itself and I would
>        therefore vote strongly against a deletion.

I disagree here.  People wanting to use AUCTeX will find how to come
by it.  Note that AUCTeX has not been activated by default in the
standard XEmacs setup IIRC because people might prefer the "builtin"
TeX mode.  At least in the AUCTeX's package, this has been changed and
we have added a way to turn AUCTeX off if one so desires.

But the fact remains that historically people did not get AUCTeX
activated without asking for it in their .emacs file explicitly, and
so the added value of a preinstalled installation for the user not
bothering about anything has always been questionable, to say the

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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