Re: [AUCTeX-devel] XEmacs packaging/whatever.

[Ralf Angeli]

* David Kastrup (2005-06-18) writes:

> I am tempted to do "a)" without any explanation.  Whether this can be
> called source or not we can clarify once we get some position from the
> FSF, and it is not different from what XEmacs does, anyway.  If it is
> not good for source, we can point this out afterwards.  If XEmacs
> calls their packages "binary", so can we.

Why do they put source code at all into those packages if they call it
"binary"?  Why not just output files in selected formats, like info,
PDF, and plain text?

-- 
Ralf