[ITP] xemacs: A powerful, highly customizable open source text editor and application development system

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:16:10AM +0100, Dr. Volker Zell wrote:
>Hi
>
>I would like to contribute and maintain the xemacs package:
>
> * http://xemacs.org/                         (Homepage)
> * http://ftp.us.xemacs.org/ftp/pub/          (Download location) 
>
>and also the accompanying packages xemacs-sumo/xemacs-mule-sumo:
>
> * http://xemacs.org/Develop/packages.html    (Homepage)
> * ftp://ftp.xemacs.org/pub/xemacs/packages/  (Download location) 

I'm going to give this one a super +3 vote.  We definitely need this in the
distribution.

>I haven't uploaded the packages yet because there are 3 minor problems 
>which I would like to discuss.
>
> o In the xemacs package there are two files in common with the standard emacs
>   package
>
>     /usr/bin/b2m.exe
>     /usr/bin/rcs-checkin
>
>   How should I deal with them ?

I guess you should work this out with Joe Buehler.  If they are the same in each
package then maybe we can break them out into their own package and one of you
can provide them separately?

Can anyone comment on how other distributions deal with this issue?
   
> o Also xemacs ships with a copy of etags/ctags which collide with the following
>   files from the ctags package (they also have different command-line options)
> 
>     /usr/bin/ctags.exe
>     /usr/bin/etags.exe
>    
>   and if ctags gets updated to the FHS also the following man pages will collide
>    
>     /usr/share/man/man1/ctags.1
>     /usr/share/man/man1/etags.1
>
>   How to deal with this issues ?

Can anyone comment on how other distributions deal with this issue?

> o The two sumo packages are just the complete prepackaged elisp infrastructure
>   for running xemacs. xemacs-sumo is about 22MB and xemacs-mule-sumo about 5MB
>   in size !! Everybody could just download them from the original download 
>   location (see above) and untar them in the right lisp load path. The only 
>   advantages of having them as cygwin packages are: setup compatible and 
>   the right location for unpacking is in place. The size is what worries 
>   me.
> 
>What do you think ?

Separate package...

cgf