Unified file-name syntax?

[Michael Sperber]

Michael Albinus <michael.albinus at gmx.de> writes:

> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:
>
>> Michael Sperber writes:
>>
>>  > I suspect this statement arose from the fact that I wasn't responsive at
>>  > the time this came around.  (Or did anyone actively speak about against
>>  > "unified filename syntax"?)  For this, I apologize.
>>
>> Something like that....  I don't recall anyone speaking against it.
>>
>> +1 for unified syntax (even though rcp syntax sucks...).
>
> I found a discussion about at
> <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.xemacs.beta/16552/focus=14525>
>
> Major concern was that EFS could be broken in package
> management. 

It seems to me both syntaxes could co-exist because of the added colon
in the unified syntax.  Am I wrong?

> There was also the suggestion that a unified syntax shall be closed to
> URL syntax; this would need an agreement with the GNU Emacs people.

I see it was discussed on xemacs-beta.  Was there ever any progress on
the discussion with GNU Emacs?

> But before we go into the discussion, the Tramp synchronization with
> XEmacs shall be revitalised. Up to now it is stalled due to the GPLv3
> issue - are there any news wrt this?

Yet one more issue I hadn't kept current on.  While I dislike the v3
switch for the same reason Stephen has, I can't say I have any concrete
objection, either, and I can't find any statement in the mailing lists
that say anybody else does.  (I may be wrong, though.)

Meanwhile, this message here:

http://www.sxemacs.org/list-archives/html/sxemacs-devel/2007-08/msg00003.html

has this:

>> While I appreciate that Tramp is separable from the rest of XEmacs, they're
>> not exactly completely independent works, either.  As I understand it, if
>> you take an XEmacs package that has Tramp bundled inside that, and then
>> build and install that the normal way, XEmacs will automatically load Tramp
>> on startup.  To a user who wasn't familiar with the XEmacs architecture,
>> there would be no reason to believe that the remote editing features were
>> somehow separate from the rest of the editor.  So, an XEmacs+Tramp
>> distribution is not mere aggregation, but instead a combination, and you
>> need to follow the terms of both programs' licenses to make that
>> combination.  In this case, the way to do that is to follow the terms of
>> GPLv3, since that's what Tramp offers, and it's an option that's available
>> for the rest of XEmacs too.

Could we work around this by having Tramp not be auto-activated, but
requiring some explicit (require 'tramp) or (turn-on-tramp) or something?

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla