auctex/CHANGES

[David Kastrup]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:

>>>>>> "David" == David Kastrup <dak at gnu.org> writes:
>
>     David> I don't really think it an appropriate idea to distribute a
>     David> set of files compiled with different than the standard
>     David> settings without also distributing the responsible scripts
>     David> and settings.
>
> We do distribute everything, just not as part of the prebuilt AUCTeX
> package.

Well, you know my opinion about a different distribution mechanism
(CVS instead of ftp), and having mirrors which only mirror the
binaries, in connection with the GPL clause

    If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
    access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
    access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
    distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
    compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

All GNU/Linux distributors distribute source packages _along_ with the
binaries or from the same directory hierarchies.  But we have been
through this already.

> If it is not possible to check out the package tree from CVS and
> rebuild the package, that is a bug and we will fix it.
>
>     David> is there anything wrong in just checking in the requisite
>     David> precompiled files in the same form as they are already in
>     David> the tarball?
>
> As a solution to the current issue, yes, there is.  That means our
> users can't build modified versions using our framework, and that's
> not acceptable to us.

I find that somewhat clashing with your previous contention that
"complete corresponding machine-readable source code" need not include
the package-specific scripts and files (namely not the framework, but
the specific files integrating AUCTeX with that framework) you created
for building the package.  Whatever.  We have been over this already
and it is abundantly clear that you will not cede anything which would
require work to fix.

Letting this drop, still the original question remains why you would
want to offer files like FAQ, INSTALL and so on compiled with
different options than those of the source distribution, and thus
being different from those in the source tarball.  I don't see what it
buys you not to use the -D rawfile switch in the intended way.  While
you are, of course, free to break the readability of those files in
any manner you wish to, it is hard to see the point in doing so.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum