Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Thomas> I think the situation is: Emacs policy is inadvertently > Thomas> wrong. Emacs policy should be fixed. Maintainers who are > Thomas> conforming to Emacs policy should not be blamed for following > Thomas> the rules that they thought they should follow.
Thanks. You're the first to say anything like this. > Once the > Thomas> emacs policy is fixed, the packages that use it should then > Thomas> be fixed. > > Could you explain to me, please, exactly what bits of the > emacs policy are wrong? I seem to have missed those. Emacs policy dictates that elisp files that are eval'ed at Emacs startup go under /etc/emacs. However, these aren't necessarily configuration files (even if policy dictates that they be conffiles). So that's a problem with Emacs policy. (e.g. lots of other programs load some init code at startup that isn't stored under /etc nor tagged as conffiles.) It doesn't usually hurt much of anything by tagging them as such except that half (or so) of us hadn't done so. Also, Tagging them as conffiles has the drawback that it leaves crud on the system when you remove instead of purge the package. Peter
