|> I'm not a great fan of orphaning complicated packages. Are there users |> that need emacs20 because emacs21 is broken for some things?
Here we have a graduate student lab with a lot of Debian machines. Because it's a graduate student lab, and therefore at the bottom of the totem-pole as far as funding priorities are concerned, the hardware is pathetic---slow and old, hardly any memory. When I upgraded these machines to Debian woody late last summer, and made emacs21 the default emacs, people complained that on the machines available to them, emacs21 was impossibly slow. They all migrated back (down) to emacs20 as a consequence, which performs just fine on this pathetic hardware. So it's not just an issue of what's broken, I think. It's also a matter of whether the number of users in the situation I just described justifies the effort that would be required to maintain emacs20 as a package. Jim
