xemacs vs emacs

[David Kastrup]

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

> David Kastrup writes:
>
>  > >  > But even the versions in "pre-release" are outdated.
>  > >
>  > > Keeping up-to-date is a non-goal for the core developers.
>  > 
>  > It is a non-goal, but a frequent advertising item.  Which I find kind of
>  > distasteful.
>
> Well, that's because you don't understand the role of the package
> maintainers.  Some of them do keep their packages very up-to-date.
> The AUCTeX package maintainer, on the other hand, has to deal with
> you, who have publicly called him incompetent.

You can, of course, support this accusation?  With an actual quote?  You
really love "paraphrasing" according to your quite selective memory,
don't you?

I have more than once told you: don't paraphrase me.  Quote me.  It is
not the first time you come up with an utterly twisted interpretation of
statements of mine.

So please refrain from stating anything about me without quoting what
you are building your views from.

>  > >  > AUCTeX
>  > >
>  > > AUCTeX is a special case; the AUCTeX project maintainer objects to the
>  > > XEmacs package system in principle (although he, and the project, has
>  > > always been good about supporting XEmacs users of AUCTeX).
>  > 
>  > Stephen, when you feel yourself unable to utter anything which can't be
>  > in good conscience supported by a shred of evidence, please just keep
>  > quiet.
>  > 
>  > This is actually slander
>
> Can't be, it is true.  You claim that a package system that requires
> package maintainers to commit to a particular repository is
> unsustainable.  How is that not an objection in principle?

Stephen, I have no slaves I can muster to do your bidding.  If you want
work done, do it yourself instead of whining that nobody else does it
and slandering those who don't jump when you whistle.  It is not an
"objection in principle" when I decide that I will not waste my own time
on work that is redundant.

I will happily support anybody who wants to do this, and you can, of
course, ask Uwe or Mats whether they think that I have tried them from
creating or supporting a working AUCTeX package setup in the XEmacs
package system.  I have done everything short of becoming an XEmacs
developer and abandoning distribution/Emacs support in order to help you
get to a working setup.

>  > repetition of such stuff.  The AUCTeX project actually _provides_ a
>  > perfectly working and reasonably maintained XEmacs package _for_
>  > the XEmacs package system,
>
> It is a tarball, not a package.  Package sources live in XEmacs CVS.
> This is required because Emacs's facilities for loading modules do not
> make it possible to determine dependencies reliably without trying it.

Oh sure.  That's why there exist no Emacs offers for Gnus, or something.

>  > And I've gone out of my way to help XEmacs developers understand
>  > the AUCTeX structure, providing example versions, providing
>  > information about the setup, explaining every bit of it and
>  > supporting them wherever I could.
>
> Hm?  Who are these XEmacs developers and where is this information
> you've provided?

Partly posted to this list, partly in smaller distribution.  Most
notable are you yourself, Nix, Uwe, Mats.  Basically, whoever asked.

>  > What I won't do is to change AUCTeX's build infrastructure into one
>  > supporting XEmacs-only, depending on XEmacs CVS access and being
>  > developed in the XEmacs package repository.
>
> That's not the same thing as providing an XEmacs package.  It does
> require additional work to provide an XEmacs package, which you refuse
> to do.

No, which _you_ refuse to do.  Of us two, I am not the XEmacs user and
developer.  So why should there be an obligation for me to change your
diapers?

> That's unfortunate for the users, but it is your right.

Thanks, your magnificence.  You are too generous.

>  > The job of a project leader as I understand it does not consist of
>  > keeping the obituaries pretty and the blame assigned elsewhere.
>
> Then stop doing that, David.

You mean, I should stop distributing an XEmacs package so that the blame
is not sitting as obviously on your doorstep?

-- 
David Kastrup