[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Uwe Brauer
Subject: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: [comp.emacs.xemacs] AUCTeX 11.84 released
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:04:41 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.18 (linux)

>>>>> "David" == David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:


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

For me this would be fine, but honestly I have no strong opinions
concerns about that point and prefer to leave this decisions to others.


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

Right, but at least you would not get outdated bug reports, I am
anyhow  not sure that such a version will be so much easier to compile
but I might try just out of curiosity.
   >> -  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 of outdated packages.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?

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

Well but if the relevant address were changed you wouldn't get such
reports wouldn't you?

   >> -  Auctex could be removed, but frankly even having an outdated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.

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

I disagree here. There is a difference to add 
(require 'tex-site) or
the like to a .emacs file 

than to try to install even a complied Xemacs package which you
offer. I presume we simply are thinking of different users
here. Especially users of the MS Windows environment are not used to
unpack packages in some directories they don't know. Believe me there
are a lot of users still using (La)TeX but they are not hackers at
all. Anyhow I don't want to start a flamewar on this but to start to
synchronise. Let us hope the best (any help would be appreciate as

Uwe Brauer 

Attachment: pgpTHv6TJ41ZR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

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