Re: NEW: auctex

[rich cannnings <rich@cannings.org>]

On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 08:05:04AM +0100, Nikolay Sturm wrote:
> At least from the point of view of an xemacs user this port doesn't make
> sense. Xemacs has its own package system, that doesn't interfere with
> our policies AFAIK and is dead simple to use. 

The only reason why I added the xemacs flavour was because the second
sentence in http://www.gnu.org/software/auctex/ convinced me. It
states:

	In recent versions of XEmacs, AUCTeX is usually already
	available as a package [in xemacs-sumo], though not 
	necessarily up to date. 

I thought some users would enjoy a more recent version---especially in
light of our aging xemacs-sumo port.

> Furthermore, there is the xemacs-sumo port (which is really
> out-of-date). 

Yes, both xemacs and xemacs-sumo are quite old. Personally, I only use
xemacs for testing, but I am willing to update them. I'll email the 
maintainer and see what he is up too.

> What is the situation in gnu emacs land? Do they have a package
> system, too? 

Xemacs has a good idea, eh? As for gnu emacs land, am quite certain
one does not exist. Currently, lisp packages are distributed in 3
manners: some are only distributed with gnu emacs (e.g. rmail), some
have older versions in the emacs dist and newer on the web (e.g.
speedbar), and some, like auctex, must be grabbed from the web. 

Unlike xemacs, the distribution and compilation of gnu emacs packages
are not standardized, however the installations are always in the
site-lisp directory. 

Where should I go from here? 

(1) remove the xemacs flavour, and update xemacs and xemacs-sumo?
(2) just update xemacs and xemacs-sumo?