On 10 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> On 10 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >>>> I forget to add one important thing of course, the Xemacs package >>>> system which allows on the fly actualization. Emacs has nothing >>>> similar. >>> >>> According to what I read, it is not a missing feature, it is an >>> unwanted feature. I'm personaly happy with packages provided as >>> debian packages, so i don't need to grab the big bunch of packages >>> I don't use (emacs21-support or alike). >> Just a moment, > > Warning: I don't want this debate to turn into another war, that has > no place among emacsen users. > Right I agree.
> > Except that you cannot keep track of packages you installed throught > dpkg -l. Furthermore, I checked myself available XEmacs packages you mean third party packages can not be handled by PUI? Very true *one* of the missing features of the Xemacs package system. The problem has been addressed however the lack of manpower so far has prevented any progress. The *second* missing feature IMHO is the lack of something like _alien_ a utility which would allow you to convert regular vanilla lisp packages into the Xemacs pkg format. > (in the CVS package CVS), some of them are outdated, mostly because: > - noone cares for maintaining them (ada mode, ibuffer mode, ...) - > some of them come from a sync with the GNU tree and require more > tweek, which requires manpower) > > I'm not saying this package system is bad, but that it is not always > up-to-date. This is true, I myself volunteered to maintain 2 pkg, since I found them very outdated. Again my point is for a average user it is much more convenient to use the Xemacs package system to upgrade a lisp package than it is for the average GNU emacs user. > > This is not entirely true. XEmacs packages are not directly grabbed > from upstream places. They require some work for being integrated in > the package tree at xemacs.org. I am not sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean to turn a given lisp package into the Xemacs package format. This is a non trival task I agree, see above. On the other hand, even given that debian has alien an official package usually would not be generated using such a converter. But then we come to the point turning a program into a some kind of package system is non trivial, not for debian not for xemacs. Besides the pro and cons for emacs and Xemacs my point was that debian could _save some work_ by taking the Xemacs pkg and not re-write them as debian packages, like the x-symbol-debian package which is quite outdated. And BTW what you said about the Xemacs package system of course applies for the debian system: some debian system are out of syn with the original package, tex4ht is an example which occurs to me, there might be more. Uwe
