I am just another of emacs’ many fans. I use Emacs. I host http://www.gnufans.net
I mostly don’t sign off on stuff I write on emacswiki…
Thanks for fixing that link. --AaronHawley
How can you be contacted? Your homepage is down and the respective email doesn’t work anymore, nor does another email I found in some of your libraries. Are you going to distribute your Emacs libraries again sometime? – JonasBernoulli
A copy of the email I sent to you:
I maintain a mirror of Emacs packages at https://github.com/emacsmirror which includes quite a few of your packages. This packages are regularly and automatically synchronized to import newer versions. Recently I noticed that this started failing and that your homepage at http://www.gnufans.net/~deego is down. Actually the complete domain is down.
So I was wondering if you are going to put your homepage and especially the Emacs packages up again there or somewhere else. If that domain is gone for good and you do not want to setup a new homepage I would recommend making your packages available on http://github.com.
If you do that please create one repository per package. I import git (and other) repositories containing exactly one package or plain files hosted using http or ftp but I do not import repositories that bundle together unrelated libraries.
Making your packages available on github might even be a good idea if you don’t personally use git and/or do no longer want to maintain these packages. It might increase the changes of somebody else volunteering to do so. If you do go that route and are not comfortable using git I can help you with the process.
Fire up xemacs (xemacs21 from debian stable here), and see the help tab at the top right. In XEmacs’ “Help: About XEmacs” section, xemacs lists contributors, which expands to a “Legion of Contributors to XEmacs” page with some 614 lines.. with links to separate pages for each contributor. Not once on any of those pages do they see it fit to mention, even in passing, the person (RMS) who probably wrote a very large percentage (or, for that matter, the organization (FSF) that probably wrote an even larger percentage) of the code? When you mention the authors of a software, isn’t it disingenuous to skip the primary (or, at least, “a major”) author? They helpfully mention, “We have no doubt forgotten someone; we apologize!” They also list the various organizations that supported XEmacs, but fail to mention that perhaps the largest code-base was written with support from FSF, or that XEmacs was derived/forked from GNU Emacs. They say instead, “XEmacs is related to GNU Emacs.” Personally, I had been warming to the idea of exploring XEmacs because of various reasons, but this sort of dishonesty turns me off. (I would be really surprised if it were true that FSF is not a major code contributor for XEmacs. Judging from xemacs’ cvs sources, even after the fork, many .c files are full of comments like “sync with FSF”, and many do say “Original Authorship: FSF [Emacs].)”) – deego