David Kastrup writes: > You better back this up with an actual message id.
I admit that I am not in a position to provide evidence that would convince you that you insulted Uwe, and I apologize for claiming that you did insult him. > And that is not an insult, but rather praise: he took up the ball as > well as he could because XEmacs developers intimate with the package > system dropped the ball several years ago. *sigh* Don't you see that you don't even defend yourself against accusations of insult without resorting to insulting phrases? Don't you realize that it is not possible for a user-supported free software project to "drop the ball"? If *our users* had asked us to remove the package because it's useless, we would be *perverse* to keep it. But if in our judgment many of our users benefit from availability of an old version of a package as compared to removal, that's a compromise, not "dropping the ball," upstream's opinion notwithstanding. The XEmacs developers are willing to *help*; we simply are unwilling to make you boss, and have some conditions on putting code into the packages that we are unwilling to bend. I would like to use the upstream distribution as the basis for the XEmacs package as much as possible, but what you demand is something that is not an XEmacs package. It is, of course, our prerogative to determine what is and is not acceptable as an XEmacs package, just as it is the AUCTeX maintainers' prerogative to determine whether producing a package that meets our requirements is an appropriate use of AUCTeX resources. Your (David's) response to those facts is insults, bullying and arrogant attitude, references to legal action, threats of dropping support, etc. Is it any wonder that we respond with defensive hostility? > I think we should just declare XEmacs a non-goal for AUCTeX and > either removing all XEmacs support or declare it open for bit rot. I hope that the AUCTeX project will continue to provide support for XEmacs users. We stand ready to consult when the documentation is unclear, and we'll do our best to respond appropriately to problem reports (although our resources are extremely constrained at the moment). I recognize that AUCTeX resources are also limited, and since I have minimal knowledge of AUCTeX's user population and needs, I will simply trust that you will make a balanced decision concerning XEmacs support. I have no recommendation to make to you. _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
