> emacs. While this is an inconvenience, it allows people to choose
> their options.
Indeed - I'm the *emacs* maintainer, and I ran xemacs on one of my
systems for a *long* time (finally switched back to emacs for
performance and diskspace reasons, but it was a primary mail reading
site for 6 mo
Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kevin Dalley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The discussion was whether xemacs-19.14 or 19.15 was the best choice
> > for bo. Could you please state your reasons for removing xemacs?
>
> Moving 19.15 to bo was out of the question because of the time and
Kevin Dalley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The discussion was whether xemacs-19.14 or 19.15 was the best choice
> for bo. Could you please state your reasons for removing xemacs?
Moving 19.15 to bo was out of the question because of the time and the
seriousness of bugs still being filed against
Guy,
I think you made the wrong decision here. James LewisMoss never
responded to the 8857 bug list to your request for pulling xemacs. In
fact, I couldn't find anyone other than yourself who supported the
decision to pull xemacs completely. The discussion was whether
xemacs-19.14 or 19.15 was
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Sailer) writes:
> Since I didn't get an answer on -private, I'll do this the public
> way. Xemacs seems to be missing from bo. It's in rex and hamm. I con-
> sider a missing major package a bug unless there was a reason it
> was pulled. Brian? Anyone?
See bug 8857.
Guy
5 matches
Mail list logo
