Re: New maintainer

[David Kastrup]

"John Wiegley" <address@hidden> writes:

>>>>>> Yoni Rabkin <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> You've manufactured that distinction artificially in order to make people
>> think that the two are mutually exclusive. Please don't do that. How can it
>> be the best possible GNU/Emacs if it doesn't respect my freedom?
>
> I have contrasted attending to the politics of the FSF with the technical
> needs of Emacs, and asked which one was primary in the search for a
> maintainer. That is all.
>
>>>>>> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> I wouldn't go as far as calling this "ethical skills" but yes, it
>> seems like a cultural mismatch that would appear likely to cause
>> considerable friction in choosing consistent priorities for ongoing
>> development.
>
> It's possible this is true. I don't seek to change anything about
> Emacs from a legal standpoint, but I would be more vocal in wanting
> better support for non- GNU platforms, such as OS X.

You could start by telling Apple to make its terms and conditions for
XCode compatible with creating and distributing software without
requiring a native OSX installation (which is not feasible when
targetting multiple platforms with crosscompilation).

Because that's kind of a bummer.  Where is the point in promoting a
portable compiler chain ike Clang/LLVM if you are precluded from using
it for, well, porting stuff to OSX?

The necessity for maintaining a _natively_ compiled port of OSX is a
really big setback for supporting a diverse set of platforms and leads
to a fragmentation of efforts.

Getting ideological about this saves oneself from sinking an arbitrary
amount of effort in endeavors that are constantly under threats outside
of the developers' control and can be killed at the whim of parties not
interested in free software.

I don't want an Emacs maintainer ultimately banking on the goodwill of
Apple regarding the invested efforts.  That's not an inspiring work
environment.

-- 
David Kastrup