On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:

> >>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Eilert <spedrosa@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Stephen> With a slightly improved system, we could have
> Stephen> dependencies. This could make easier to solve the
> Stephen> aforementioned problem of gathering multiple, independent
> Stephen> packages from different sources.
>
> Just FYI -- package.el (the elisp side of ELPA) does handle dependencies.
>
> :-)


It appears I have overlooked that. Nice to know.

>
>
> Stephen> Does anyone see a major flaw in a system like that? Or is it
> Stephen> a matter of "show me the code and I'll comment"? ELPA could
> Stephen> be the starting point.
>
> There was a discussion a while ago on this list.  RMS wanted to
> restrict the available packages to those which had been assigned to
> the FSF, but I did not agree with that.


Meh. Just set up a repository maintained by the FSF by default and leave the
ability to add others, at the user's discretion. It won't prevent anything
that isn't already being done, as it is just for convenience.

>
>
> I would reconsider my position if the Emacs maintainers were
> interested -- I think it would be useful to Emacs users if there were
> a simple, standard way to install and activate packages.


Definitely. Grouping modules together (instead of all over the web at some
guy's personal homepage) would be just an added bonus.


>
>
> However, this would still not help you directly, because I think some
> of the packages you want are not assigned.  So, you would have to
> solve that problem as well.


One problem at a time ;)


--Stephen

programmer, n:
A red eyed, mumbling mammal capable of conversing with inanimate monsters.