Re: Bug#61167: emacsen-common: major bug in policy (not RC for potato)

2001-07-17 Thread James LewisMoss
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:33:39 -0400, Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: Julian> On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 11:11:34AM -0500, Rob Browning wrote: >> Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Here's another suggestion. Why not leave the existing emacsen >> > packages as t

Re: Bug#61167: emacsen-common: major bug in policy (not RC for potato)

2001-07-17 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 11:11:34AM -0500, Rob Browning wrote: > Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Here's another suggestion. Why not leave the existing emacsen > > packages as they are and apply the rule only to new versions of > > emacs (so emacs21 and xemacs22 onwards)? That will

Re: Bug#61167: emacsen-common: major bug in policy (not RC for potato)

2001-07-17 Thread Rob Browning
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > s/may never/will never/. Well, I didn't want to rule out the possibility that we might think of something clever between now and whenever emacs21 is released :> > But if it's only for emacs21 onwards, let's give an appropriate > example, and a footnote

Re: Bug#61167: emacsen-common: major bug in policy (not RC for potato)

2001-07-17 Thread Rob Browning
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here's another suggestion. Why not leave the existing emacsen > packages as they are and apply the rule only to new versions of > emacs (so emacs21 and xemacs22 onwards)? That will save the hassle, > I guess. Thanks for the suggestion. That sounded l

Re: Bug#61167: emacsen-common: major bug in policy (not RC for potato)

2001-07-10 Thread Rob Browning
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here's another suggestion. Why not leave the existing emacsen > packages as they are and apply the rule only to new versions of emacs > (so emacs21 and xemacs22 onwards)? That will save the hassle, I > guess. That sounds like a pretty good solution, a

Re: Bug#61167: emacsen-common: major bug in policy (not RC for potato)

2001-07-05 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 04:16:26PM -0500, Rob Browning wrote: > Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > AFAICT, that seems to make sense. The only issue is the transition > > between the old system and the new (dpkg doesn't like replacing > > symlinks with directories). I don't know how

Re: Bug#61167: emacsen-common: major bug in policy (not RC for potato)

2001-05-22 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 04:16:26PM -0500, Rob Browning wrote: > Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > AFAICT, that seems to make sense. The only issue is the transition > > between the old system and the new (dpkg doesn't like replacing > > symlinks with directories). I don't know how

Re: Bug#61167: emacsen-common: major bug in policy (not RC for potato)

2001-05-21 Thread Rob Browning
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > AFAICT, that seems to make sense. The only issue is the transition > between the old system and the new (dpkg doesn't like replacing > symlinks with directories). I don't know how to resolve this, > though. Hmm. I didn't realize that was a problem.

Re: Bug#61167: emacsen-common: major bug in policy (not RC for potato)

2001-05-21 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 02:07:21PM -0500, Rob Browning wrote: > Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Unless someone has a compelling reason arguing against this, I'm going > to just change emacsen-policy to mandate that each emacsen should make > the version specific dir, i.e. > > /usr/sha

Re: Bug#61167: emacsen-common: major bug in policy (not RC for potato)

2001-05-21 Thread Rob Browning
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What would be the advantage to two directories? I guess it would be > less confusing. I'm wondering if there would be any drawback, though. > Maybe packages accidentally putting files in 20.X/site-lisp rather > than emacs20/site-lisp, though I guess tha

Re: Bug#61167: emacsen-common: major bug in policy (not RC for potato)

2001-04-16 Thread Rob Browning
I'm re-copying your entire reply because I put a bogus list name on my first mail to you (which meant that debian-emacsen wasn't included). Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 06:20:40PM -0500, Rob Browning wrote: > > To fix this, it seems like maybe we can just c

Re: Bug#61167: emacsen-common: major bug in policy (not RC for potato)

2001-04-14 Thread Rob Browning
OK, so after all the back an forth about whether or not add-on packages should just be responsible for cleaning up after themselves, which I believe was concluded with a "yes", Julian recently did a nice job of reminding me that there was still a real, honest-to-gooness nasty problem with the curr