>>>>> "Miles" == Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Miles> Thomas Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It's amusing, isn't it, that so many of the scripting languages
>> (Python, Perl, Ruby, notably) wind up with their own little
>> package, configure, install systems.
XEmacs, too. This is a salient example, as Emacs has explicitly
refused the offer of XEmacs package management code.
Miles> I think that has more to do with the creators'
Miles> personalities (and in some cases, history) than any kind of
Miles> actual necessity.
Given that the p-languages and XEmacs all have them, and I don't know
of any such scripting language that has adopted a 3rd party packaging
solution, I have to think there's some necessity, and that it's
necessary that it be idiosyncratic.
I would be very curious to find out what Stefan Monnier thinks about
that. (I'm under that impression that he's relatively sympathetic to
package managers, compared to the typical Emacs hacker.) Stefan, if
you would be so kind?
--
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.
_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
