From xemacs-m  Fri Apr 18 10:25:02 1997
Received: from altair.xemacs.org (steve@xemacs.miranova.com [206.190.83.19])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA29177
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 10:25:01 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from steve@localhost)
	by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA21397;
	Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:37:35 -0700
Mail-Copies-To: never
To: 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>
X-Url: http://www.miranova.com/%7Esteve/
X-Face: #!T9!#9s-3o8)*uHlX{Ug[xW7E7Wr!*L46-OxqMu\xz23v|R9q}lH?cRS{rCNe^'[`^sr5"
 f8*@r4ipO6Jl!:Ccq<xoV[Qz2u8<8-+Vwf2gzJ44lf_/y9OaQ`@#Q65{U4/TC)i2`~/M&QI$X>p:9I
 OSS'2{-)-4wBnVeg0S\O4Al@)uC[pD|+
X-Attribution: sb
From: Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com>
In-Reply-To: Hrvoje Niksic's message of 18 Apr 1997 17:06:46 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: 18 Apr 1997 08:37:35 -0700
Message-ID: <m2afmwpcjk.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
Lines: 34
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.45/XEmacs 20.2(beta1)

Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> writes:

> Heiko Muenkel <muenkel@tnt.uni-hannover.de> writes:
>> PS: The fundamental mode is sufficient to edit every file in every
>> language and there are sometimes situations where users would
>> prefer or even need such a spartanic XEmacs.

No, it isn't.  Fundamental mode + MULE+ Egg + (necessary Input Method)
is, I believe.

> This is a very wrong attitude for an Emacs editor.  I don't know
> about you, but *I* wouldn't use XEmacs if the C mode wouldn't come
> with it by default.  XEmacs is written in C, after all, and after
> Lisp mode, it's the most basic thing we can provide.

Everything in the minimal core is in the critical path of releases and 
frozen.

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.

> 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?
-- 
steve@miranova.com baur
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be billed at $250/message.

