[Fwd: [PATCH] packages: Define encode-mime-charset-string as function]

[Ville Skyttä]

On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 09:29, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>>>> "Ville" == Ville Skytt <Ville> writes:
> 
>     Ville> On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 06:41, Katsumi Yamaoka wrote:
> 
>     >> It seems that there are three choices for the future XEmacs:
> 
>     >> 1. Put APEL in each version of the XEmacs core.
> 
> No chance.  APEL in practice is a third dialect of Emacs Lisp, similar
> to both GNU Emacs Lisp and XEmacs Lisp, but still subtly different.  I
> can think of three XEmacs Reviewers who would veto that immediately
> for the devel branch, and anyway there's no way we can retroactively
> install it in existing installations of already released versions.

100% agreement.

>     >> 2. Leave APEL out of the XEmacs packages.  Users who need to
>     >> have APEL should install it by themselves.
> 
> This deserves strong consideration.

Ouch.  A grep into the package source tree reveals that mule-base, bbdb,
liece, rmail and tm require apel... maybe they should be "fixed"?

>     >> 3. Rewrite all the APEL modules in order to have a portability
>     >> at the sacrifice of a performance.
> 
> (I think XEmacs effort would be far
> better devoted to synching with GNU Emacs and making as much of APEL
> unnecessary as possible).

Again, agreed.

>     Ville> IMHO, any of these choices doesn't sound too good.  Would
>     Ville> this one work?
> 
>     Ville> 4. Provide the XEmacs apel package without byte-compiled
>     Ville> files.
> 
> No.  That's basically a source package, and source packages currently
> are completely unsupported.  It's hard enough to get a clean compile
> environment in the source tree; I think it highly unlikely that we'll
> be able to give quality support in the installed tree.

Okay.  But I wasn't suggesting that the package would be byte-compiled
at all before it's loaded, neither in the released package or locally
after installation.  Wouldn't the .el files be enough, provided that the
package system would really enforce the requirements (fsf-compat,
xemacs-base)?  People wanting to byte-compile apel would be on their
own.  OTOH, as you noted, I guess this probably wouldn't make our
support task easier.

-- 
\/ille Skyttä