* Holger Schauer (2005-06-01) writes: > On 4290 September 1993, Ralf Angeli wrote: > >> I don't consider it uncommon that people have software installed >> manually which is also available via the package system. Reasons >> could be special build options or the need for other versions of the >> software. > > I agree, but if a manual installation of AUCTeX would be the only > example you have to offer, I still won't take that as a valid > example. E.g., I use beta/cvs versions of (X)Emacs myself and the > Debian packages were more than once a cause of conflicts just like in > your AUCTeX case. But that doesn't imply there's something wrong with > the Debian packages, it's the duplicate installation that's causing > the trouble. Exactly like in your AUCTeX example and I'm quite sorry > to say that I think if your begging for trouble (by a duplicate > installation of files) you're rightfully on your own in getting out of > it afterwards, IMHO.
How often do I have to repeat this? The installation is intended for GNU Emacs, not XEmacs. Those files are installed into a directory XEmacs has no business looking into. It would be a different story if we were talking about site-packages versus xemacs-packages. But we are not. > Of course, that is not to say that it would be better if Elisp files > for different versions of Emacs would play along nicely. > Unfortunately, the world is not always as we would like to have > it. Breaking backwards compatibility to avoid a problem that has been > there and solved for years is just not my favourite way of dealing with > wishful thinking. Compatibility to what? I haven't seen any XEmacs document suggesting .../share/emacs/site-lisp as a location for XEmacs files. -- Ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
