Re: Testing the new boot floppies
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 16:06:45 Adam Di Carlo wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > >Previously David Huggins-Daines wrote: > >> For example, I did an install with tasksel. I selected the SGML > >> tasks. PSGML depends on: > >> > >> Depends: emacs19 | emacs20 | xemacs21, sgml-base, sgml-data > > > >Eww. Does this really imply that you can't install task-sgml without > >having to install some form of xemacs? That kind of sucks.. > > Yes, it does indeed mean that, but since psgml + emacs is the only > decent editor for XML/SGML that I know of, I think it's necessary. > Remember that Emacs20 is standard, isn't it? > The bar | usually indicates an "or". XEmacs is not necessary for task-sgml, but one of the emacsen is. I haven't tried tasksel, but selecting task-sgml with dselect works fine.
Re: Testing the new boot floppies
Previously Adam Di Carlo wrote: > Yes, it does indeed mean that, but since psgml + emacs is the only > decent editor for XML/SGML that I know of, I think it's necessary. What makes a `decent editor' here? I can perfectly edit them in vim and enjoy features like syntax highlightning as well. > Remember that Emacs20 is standard, isn't it? Some emacs is yes, but that doesn't mean it's installed on all systems. Removing ae, nvi and *emacs* tends to be the very first thing I do on all my computers :) Wichert. -- / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D | pgppnKB0inlJQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Process is no substitute for understanding
On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 07:55:41PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > For example, take the Emacs policy. I don't know very much about how > our Emacs installation system works, and if I were to be the > maintainer of the general policy manual I would probably make mistakes > if I just tried to decide things. > > However, the Emacs policy was in fact written by the Emacs experts who > designed it. I think that the Emacs maintainers should be able to get > together to discuss the matter somewhere (here would be good), take > input, have someone write the policy, and then promulgate that as the > Emacs policy. Bad example. Or perhaps a good one. The emacs policy has a major flaw which could lead to serious package breakage. Despite reporting it (December 7 1999 to the debian-emacsen list), the version in frozen still suffers from the same problem. And with no policy list to turn around and say "We need to fix it and we're going to", the emacs policy czars have the control of the policy and it won't change. While I agree that having some sort of "czar" system to push through the non-sexy but obviously correct proposals, I also see the need to have the ability for a mailing list type of group to correct bad mistakes. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
