Re: XEmacs, Emacs and elisp
>>>>> "Fabien" == Fabien Ninoles <ninf01@GEL.USherb.CA> writes:
Fabien> On 26 Feb 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi, "Helmut" == Helmut Geyer <Helmut.Geyer@IWR.Uni-Heidelberg.De>
>> "Milan" == ilan Zamazal <pdm@blackbird.ics.muni.cz> [A good
>> discussion of the problems with supporting multiple Emacsen on the
>> same box partly elided]
>>
>>
>>
>> vm-emacs vm-xemacs tm-emacs tm-xemacs
>>
>> and so on, as being the only solution technically feasible in the
>> long run. It is cleaner, and the only con is disk space usage
>> (which maybe be the lesser evil compared to what we may face as
>> the elisp dialects continue to evolve apart).
Fabien> What I suggest is to have two standards distributions of
Fabien> (X&GNU)emacs with the same based components (that really mean
Fabien> to crippled the current upstream distribution of Xemacs) and
Fabien> distributing each package both in emacs and xemacs as suggest
Fabien> by manoj. We have also to find a way to share elisp files
Fabien> between the two, although I think we can let them
Fabien> configuration independant. May be a install-elisp utilities
Fabien> could be useful?
Fabien> Any comments?
Until the XEmacs distribution comes split up I have no plans on
splitting XEmacs up. And if comes to the point where this is the
general consensus then I don't want the responsibility of distributing
XEmacs. I don't want to have to figure out what parts of XEmacs
depend on what others and so on.
XEmacs comes all nicely integrated. I see no reason to break that.
Jim
--
@James LewisMoss | moss@cs.sc.edu | Blessed Be!
@ http://www.cs.sc.edu/~moss | dres@scsn.net | Linux is cool!
@"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: