From xemacs-m  Fri Apr 18 10:51:17 1997
Received: from jagor.srce.hr (hniksic@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA29874
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 10:48:47 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from hniksic@localhost)
          by jagor.srce.hr (8.8.5/8.8.4)
	  id RAA11627; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 17:45:26 +0200 (MET DST)
To: XEmacs Developers <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: Packaging criteria
References: <m2ohbdz4ey.fsf@altair.xemacs.org> <kign2qxouar.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <m2d8rs6dgd.fsf@altair.xemacs.org> <kigiv1kok6z.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <m24td468p4.fsf@altair.xemacs.org> <kigenc8r1z9.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <199704181459.QAA00608@daedalus.tnt.uni-hannover.de> <kigd8rsgyk9.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <m2afmwpcjk.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
X-URL: ftp://gnjilux.cc.fer.hr/pub/unix/util/wget/
X-Attribution: Hrv
X-Face: Mie8:rOV<\c/~z{s.X4A{!?vY7{drJ([U]0O=W/<W*SMo/Mv:58:*_y~ki>xDi&N7XG
        KV^$k0m3Oe/)'e%3=$PCR&3ITUXH,cK>]bci&<qQ>Ff%x_>1`T(+M2Gg/fgndU%k*ft
        [(7._6e0n-V%|%'[c|q:;}td$#INd+;?!-V=c8Pqf}3J
From: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
Date: 18 Apr 1997 17:45:25 +0200
In-Reply-To: Steven L Baur's message of 18 Apr 1997 08:37:35 -0700
Message-ID: <kigafmwgwru.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
Lines: 56
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.45/XEmacs 19.15

Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com> writes:

> One point of packaging things separately is to remove restrictions like
> this.  Or to put it another way, Barry does a better job distributing
> cc-mode than we do.

Not really.  How many users are using the bundled cc-mode, as opposed
to the separate releases?  I'd say much more.

> Having something as a separate package also does not imply that testing
> of it stops.

Of course not.  But we still must provide cc-mode, as it's a case of
completeness.  XEmacs core must be a complete Emacs system, even
without Gnus, RMAIL, psgml, VM, W3, and others -- it's minimalistic
and Spartan, but still complete Emacs.

Where we obviously disagree is whether cc-mode is the part of such a
Spartan Emacs.  I think it is.  It is very sad that you question it.

> > As for Fundamental mode being good enough for this; why bother with
> > XEmacs at all?  Why don't we just use vi?  It's "sufficient" too.
> > Please refer to Per Abrahamsen's excellent article on this issue.
> 
> I have no wish to use a minimal XEmacs either, but what do our
> preferences have to do with selection of a *minimal* core?

Neither do I, but that's me.  I use XEmacs for much more than
editing.  What we're talking about is editing.

And in that sense, our preferences have a lot to do.  In my opinion,
the minimal XEmacs should be usable.  Not as a newsreader or a
mail-reader, nor as a web browser, but one should be able to use it as
an *editor*.

EMACS == Editor MACroS

If we don't provide editing, what remains?  Yes, I know what you'll
say -- the users can install C mode.  But it's never the same as
providing it in the core, for something as basic as that.

The question you have to answer is:

      Should the minimal XEmacs be usable at all?

If the answer is "no", then cc-mode really has nothing to do within
it.  It is too big, and can be installed separately.

But in that case, I'm not sure I want to have anything to do with the
package system development.

-- 
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly.  
It just happens to be selective about who it makes friends with.

