From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CVS is the `released version' Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 23:24:24 +0200 Message-ID: <46575408.9020909@gmail.com> References: <86646mjvxp.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <2cd46e7f0705251413y975af0bwbd7c6709814fd915@mail.gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1180128286 8291 80.91.229.12 (25 May 2007 21:24:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 21:24:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, JD Smith To: Ken Manheimer Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 25 23:24:44 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HrhH4-0003BN-Tt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 May 2007 23:24:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HrhH4-0002Vw-E0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 May 2007 17:24:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HrhH0-0002VJ-Me for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 May 2007 17:24:34 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HrhGy-0002V5-0X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 May 2007 17:24:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HrhGx-0002V2-Ru for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 May 2007 17:24:31 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.213]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HrhGx-0002Rx-DQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 May 2007 17:24:31 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-145-24.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.145.24]:63383 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1HrhGt-0003FC-6z; Fri, 25 May 2007 23:24:28 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070326 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: <2cd46e7f0705251413y975af0bwbd7c6709814fd915@mail.gmail.com> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000743-5, 2007-05-25), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.145.24 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1HrhGt-0003FC-6z. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1HrhGt-0003FC-6z 6df87feb0e7474c5abafeee223540125 X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:71814 Archived-At: Ken Manheimer wrote: > (2) is the tricky bit. the situation would be simplest if the update > system is contrived to only allow the entire collection of packages to > be updated at as a whole. this would mean that package committers > need worry only about interoperation with the current version of other > packages, not with the diversity available. ("current" would be a > gradually moving target, but at least there would be only one target > at any moment.) what this would amount to is a finer incremental > release mechanism for the lisp directory, as a whole. this would be > very like someone following emacs development via the CVS head, with > the addition that the releases could be better controlled to ensure > coherence/integrity, rather than being wherever checkins happen to be. I think this touches the most important point of a package system. There must be something that can assure that the package to download fits on the users system. Otherwise a package system may create a disaster. For more complicated packages the alternative is otherwise to download the whole package. And in my opinion a package system is propably of most value if it assists in installing complicated packages. It is quite simple to follow instructions to install single elisp files. I am not sure that a package system is really needed there. In contrast it may be very frustrating for a user getting the files in a package out of sync. A good package system can be a very good help to avoid that the package parts get out of sync. So please, do not add a package system that can only handle single files and not their interdependencies.