Re: "Easy" Windows Emacs

[drkm <usenet@fgeorges.org>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> Sorry, I don't see how a package-system could solve the bulk of the
> problems here.  In my experience, the problem with Windows is that
> there's no coherent set of tools and ports that will all work
> seamlessly with Emacs

  Then, if Emacs has its own package system (as a set of ELisp
libraries), there is no more need to such tools.

  David said that using a package system within Emacs may
conflict with the packaging of the system (like, as I understood,
with the Debian packages, or RPMs, or whatever).

  I agree.  But if such an Emacs package system exists (as in
XEmacs, but I don't know XEmacs), I think ELisp package
maintainers must use it instead of the system package system (I
mean they have to provide XEmacs packages, not Debian packages,
for example).

  But I don't think a package system is interresting if it's
designed to work only with a specific flavour of Emacs, or a
specific version.  The only usefull package system is one
available on almost all Emacsen.

  Because it have to be itself customisable, the maintainers of
the Emacs system package (for example gnu-emacs-XXX.deb) have to
setup it correctly (set the correct directories, etc.).

  Because we can customize such a system at any level (the
flavour or version of Emacs, the OS, the site administrator, the
user, the package itself), I don't think it'll really conflict
with other package systems.

  The most serious problem is to be used widely enough, and that
most libraries provide such a package as its official
distribution media.

  IMHO.

--drkm