From xemacs-m  Fri Apr 18 11:13:14 1997
Received: from mailhost.lanl.gov (mailhost.lanl.gov [128.165.3.12])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA00617
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 11:13:13 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from branagh.ta52.lanl.gov (branagh.ta52.lanl.gov [128.165.144.9]) by mailhost.lanl.gov (8.8.5/8.8.3) with SMTP id KAA01160 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 10:13:14 -0600 (MDT)
Received: by branagh.ta52.lanl.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA10475; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 10:07:48 -0600
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 10:07:48 -0600
Message-Id: <199704181607.KAA10475@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
From: "John A. Turner" <turner@lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: Packaging criteria
In-Reply-To: <m24td468p4.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
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>
X-Mailer: VM 6.27 under 20.1 XEmacs Lucid

[just picking a couple of things out of this thread to comment on]

Steven L Baur writes:

 > P.S.
 > As to cc-mode being part of the core I would argue that it *shouldn't* 
 > be part of the core because it is excellently maintained by Barry
 > Warsaw and updates ought to come from him not us.  Core packages get
 > updates with each release of XEmacs, actively maintained packaged
 > packages can get updated whenver their maintainer updates them.

Hrvoje Niksic writes:

 > Yes, but editing C code is the most basic functionality XEmacs can
 > possibly provide to Unix programmers.  If we decline to provide
 > cc-mode, it will mean openly agree that the core is unusable rather
 > than Spartan.
 > 
 > Personally, I've asked a number of people what they think about that,
 > and all of them agree that cc-mode must remain shipped with the XEmacs
 > core.

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

I think I have to agree with Steve on this.  I know we may be atypical 
here, but *many* XEmacs users I know here can start an XEmacs and use
it for days or weeks without *ever* editing a file in cc-mode (C, C++,
Java, whatever).  At some points this has been true for me as well
(although I'll soon be *living* in cc-mode).

I realize that is hard to believe, but it's true.

Anyway, I know this isn't a strong argument for packaging cc-mode
separately, but folks should realize that people use XEmacs in very
different ways.

I think Steve's points about maintenance and upgrading are stronger
and quite valid.

-- 
John Turner
http://www.lanl.gov/home/turner

