Bug#495383: Processed: Cloning Bug#495375

[Rafael Laboissiere]

* Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org> [2008-08-16 18:53]:

> On 17 August 2008 at 00:45, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> | * Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org> [2008-08-16 17:04]:
> | 
> | > And for that matter, I disagree with your handwaving statement that ess and
> | > noweb maintainers need to sort this out.  There is NO bug in ess.
> | 
> | If we follow this line of reasoning, then we conclude that there is no bug in
> | noweb, neither.  
> 
> But you did say earlier that noweb could/should change its 50noweb.el file,
> no?  In that case if there is a bug, it is in noweb.el.

Perhaps I had a bad formulation in what I said before, sorry for the
confusion.  The fact is that there is nothing that can be changed in
50noweb.el that will fix the bug, simply because the problem is not in the
noweb package per se.  The problem is that two different packages provide 
the same file (actually, two different versions of the same file) trying to
provide the same functionality.  This means that both packages are "buggy".

Anyway, I will not try anymore to convince you about this, you seem to have
a quite strong opinion about the issue.

> | > If emacs reports two versions, [...]
> | 
> | No, emacs reports only the ess version.
> 
> Which as you say is newer so we could call this a feature. :)

The noweb-mode.el from ess is newer because it has been adapted for the
needs of ESS.  I do not know to which extent it would be "better" for the
lambda users than that of the noweb package.

However, I agree that ess' one is probably better than noweb's one.  Perhaps
the right thing to do is to drop noweb-mode.el from the noweb package and
Suggests: ess.

> | > Can you PLEASE untie these two bug reports and close the non-bug for ess.
> | 
> | No, I cannot do something I disagree fundamentally with, sorry.  Do it
> | yourself, if you wish.  If the noweb maintainer also thinks this is a
> | non-bug, I am okay with that too.  I am not obsessed with this.
> 
> Me neither but I see no issue so I'm closing the cloned bug.

Thanks for registering our discussion publicly in the BTS.  It is okay with
me if you close the cloned bug report. My original goal was to make a public
record of a problem affecting *_both*_ packages (even if you disagree that
ESS is "buggy" here :-)

Anyway, thanks also for your quick reaction.  You always impressed me by
your responsiveness and the amount of packages you maintain alone.  I wish
the noweb maintainer could also react so quickly...

Cheers,
 
-- 
Rafael